Co2 Quantities

[athinker]

I'm looking for information on The quantity of CO2 in the apmosphere, preferably in tons.

 

Since Co2 amounts fluctuate over the year and from year to year I need info of the amount of annual fluctuation over the passed century. A graphic would do for this. Preferably in tons but a percentage graphic would do.

 

I need an estimate of the probable total CO2 produced by humans over the twertieth century. A total quantity and an average annual quantity would be helpfull.

 

Prefer online source of peer reviewed info.

[joekgamer]

I'm not sure there's even records for half that time. The only thing I can think of is measuring the CO2 in ice core samples, but I don't think that that would be very accurate over only 100 years.

[CraigD]

I'm looking for information on The quantity of CO2 in the apmosphere, preferably in tons.

This data is easy to find. A reasonable starting place is the references of any credible encyclopedia webpage, such as this wikipedia article'a.

 

The amount of carbon on Earth is essentially constant - only insignificant amounts are lost and gained to and from outer space. It's useful to study it's transfer between various chemical compounds in various places, not just atmospheric [ce]CO_2[/ce], overall. This is known as the carbon cycle, and is likewise very well documented.

 

Continuous direct measurement of atmospheric [ce]CO_2[/ce] in a location fairly unaffected by local variations (Mauna Loa Observatory) has been made only since 1958. For values before that, proxy measurement and estimation techniques must be used, as Polymath notes.

 

Good luck with your studies, athinker! :thumbs_up I don't think you'll want for good-quality material, but you'll need to be careful of misinformation spread by many climate change denialists organizations and individuals.

[athinker]

This data is easy to find. A reasonable starting place is the references of any credible encyclopedia webpage, such as this wikipedia article'a.

 

The amount of carbon on Earth is essentially constant - only insignificant amounts are lost and gained to and from outer space. It's useful to study it's transfer between various chemical compounds in various places, not just atmospheric [ce]CO_2[/ce], overall. This is known as the carbon cycle, and is likewise very well documented.

 

Continuous direct measurement of atmospheric [ce]CO_2[/ce] in a location fairly unaffected by local variations (Mauna Loa Observatory) has been made only since 1958. For values before that, proxy measurement and estimation techniques must be used, as Polymath notes.

 

Good luck with your studies, athinker! :thumbs_up I don't think you'll want for good-quality material, but you'll need to be careful of misinformation spread by many climate change denialists organizations and individuals.

 

Thank you very much. That's been very helpful. My study is now progressing nicely.

[Essay]

Thank you very much. That's been very helpful. My study is now progressing nicely.

I'm taking the liberty of copying your recent post, from that "psychology" of GW topic.

 

The CO2 based claims of "Global Warming" are unconvincing as even a cursory look at the data reads that the amount CO2 rises and falls over the year and the varience from year to year is in aproximately the same quantity as all the CO2 produced by petroleum, coal and natural gas during the entire 20th century. Since man's contribution to the CO2 content is undetectable against the natural "noise" and the contribution of man's CO2 to the global tempreture is likewise indetectable the "Climate Change" analogy to the "boiling pot" is made. As the tempreture differance between a peaceful pot of hot water and a turbulent pot of boiling water can be an indetectable differance so the argument is made that indetectable "tipping points" can exist. The differance between peaceful normal atmosphere and boiling "turbulent extreme" is not only less supported in research than tempreture data it is not even well defined. So any influence however small could push a unknown situation over the "tipping point". Classic fear mongering.

 

Good science is not a matter of opinion. Good science stands on its own evidence. Scientific "asaults" on anyone's claims are not evidence of "denial", insanity, ignorance or support for oil companies. Though, to be sure, some, but not all, who asail are in denial, insane, ignorant or supporters of oil companies. That holds for both sides in this case. In spades for some. The quality of anyone's case for their clames or questions asked of clames made in the case is a clear indicator of what type they are.

 

The oft made demand of the "warmists" is pure sophistry. "prove that it isn't".

 

To bad too. I believe in science. There are human caused problems and human produced solutions. I despise the stuff that passes for science in this case. It detracts from all the good science from where real problems are identified and solutions come.

 

athinks thou doth protest too much....

===

 

So... First I need to apologize for my sarcasm and attempts to be cute or clever. I'm a bit jerky and this is serious stuff, so.... Sorry I can't resist a few jibes.

===

 

To begin, it seems as if you expect temperatures to follow in sync with the CO2 fluctuations. But the distribution of heat throughout the globe (including the very small-- but 24/7/365 --contribution of extra heat from that extra CO2) is complicated, and it does not correlate in sync with air temperatures. Or to restate....

 

The little bit of extra heat, which our extra CO2 adds to the whole global heat distribution system, isn't all expressed as air temperature. Most of it goes into heating the oceans, melting ice, and evaporating water; and those effects then contributes to "rising air temperatures" over the long term-- differently in various regions --globally. However, greenhouse gases do have certain signatures linked to their direct heating effects, such as increased nighttime temperatures compared with daytime temperatures (weaker temperature differential), and weaker temperature differentials between the polar regions and the lower latitudes; both of which are happening.

Notice also that those effects do not depend on the temperature-- or change in temperature --for any given place, season, or particular year.

...Just to suggest a bit about the difference between heat transfer and temperature readings....

 

Secondly, yes "tipping points" is a very poorly defined, highly misused, buzzword. It comes from "chaos theory" in mathematics, and can be applied to any robust, complex, multi-variate system with multiple, interacting, positive and negative feedback loops, such as our climate. Various stable modes, or an oscillation between boundaries, is the resulting behaviour of these complex systems. The "tipping point" refers to changes occurring when a mode destabilizes and switches to a new mode with its own stability (usually less stable; or if not, then less robust than the first); or "tipping point" could refer to a system oscillating beyond its boundaries, and settling into a new mode of oscillation, with a new set of boundaries too.

 

There are tipping points within the systems comprised by the various feedback loops, and different tipping points associated with some of the variables that determine our climate. These "tipping points" are just another way of saying that our climate is like a quantum system, and it can switch from one quantum state into another state with very little notice. And we just don't know enough to calculate how much force it will take to make some switches. We can see scores of switches over the past 2-4 million years (that seem to be explained), but there are unknown switches (tipping points) to worry about when you force the climate into "new territory" beyond its historical boundaries.

 

Unfortunately, unlike quantum electrodynamics, the climate system is complex enough that it will not "switch back" or "tip back" simply by reversing the forces that caused the initial tip. That's why they use the term tipping, because it's not easily reversed but must go through a process of hysteresis, and find a different pathway back to the initial starting conditions. You might search the terms (alone or in various combinations): hysteresis, multi-variate equation, robust complex systems, and chaos theory... to better see the dangers of various tipping points.

===

 

But back to CO2, aside from the danger to the food web from ocean acidification, CO2 still re-radiates infrared energy in the same way it did back in the late 1800's when they discovered that property of CO2. That was the basis of "GW" predictions back then, and it still is today. GW Theory (or Climate Change Theory for those who can't distinguish winter from climate) is not based on present temperatures, historical temperatures, or the various models that help us understand how adding extra heat to a system causes the system to behave differently; it is only based on the radiative forcing properties of CO2.

That radiative property of CO2 adds a few extra Watts/sq.meter (24/7/365), over the entire earth's surface, which is only a small percentage of the total incoming wattage from the sun; but it's enough to change things by about 3 degrees, in going from under 300 ppm to 600 ppm (~2 degrees at 450 ppm: nonlinear effect). That change in average temperature is larger than either the MWP or the LIA, both of which disrupted various civilizations globally. Disruptions to a global economic system would be more difficult to adapt to, wouldn't they?

===

 

Thirdly, I also noticed that you've confused good science (with its inherently slow, faltering, methodical progress) such as atomic theory or genetic theory, with the debatably good or bad uses that knowledge is put to by humans. Maybe if you gave some examples of what you've seen as bad science, your statement would make more sense. There are lots of examples of fraud and forgery in research, but those remain isolated in duration and overall effect on science and scientific theories. Do you mean something else? Any suggestions?

===

 

Fourth, after finishing 45 lectures on "Science of Climate Change" this Spring semester, I'm hoping to exercise this information. That bit, about what GW theory is not based upon, came from the class, as well as the numbers on CO2 and the comparisons about GHG effects. The chaos theory/tipping point and hysteresis are from elsewhere in my background, but feel free to ask about citations (i.e. for hysteresis: google "Kerry Emanuel" MIT lecture "cold wake" hurricanes--or I could write about that lecture). The stuff about civilizations and economics is just me ‘n’ my take on history (can somebody help; my hair's on fire!). But as a degreed physical/biochemist, the "science" behind this climate change theory stuff looks sound to me, especially when given more than a cursory examination. But hey....

 

Lastly, one thing I rarely hear talked about ...is how "easily" solvable this problem with CO2 can be. Well, compared with the consequences, it would be easy to shift our energy usage into less carbon intensive ...yada yada yada.

 

There are over 15 strategies to each reduce one gigaton/yr. of carbon emissions. All we need to do is to pick eight or nine of those, if we desire keeping our carbon additions to the atmosphere constant. And that accounts for decades of ramping up a shift in the carbon intensity. It is only simple things such as shifting from coal to natural gas, doubling gas mileage, building fifty times our current wind-power deployment, keep nuclear growing, biomass management for bioenergy, energy saving buildings, solar.... Well you've heard about most of them, I'm sure. There are 16 (at my last count) identified strategies, which are "shelf ready" (no new R&D) that can be adopted over the next few decades... creating a lot of jobs along the way. We just need to decide which strategies to pursue.

 

That point was from the class too, and is called the Wedges Strategy... which can be easily searched online. Also....

This will be a lot cheaper and quicker than what we already invested to build our current world "and we got rich beyond the avarice of kings" in the process of doing it the first time... as my professor pointed out, "...And NOW we get to do it again!"

 

~sorry to go on and turn this into an essay, but that is my nature.... :)

~SA

 

p.s. I've got some CO2 tonnage numbers to look for and post; meanwhile have you searched hartwell paper?

 

...so to summarize:

 

It's real, serious, important, agreed upon, and fixable.

~ :huh:

[Essay]

I'm looking for information on The quantity of CO2 in the apmosphere, preferably in tons.

 

Since Co2 amounts fluctuate over the year and from year to year I need info of the amount of annual fluctuation over the passed century. A graphic would do for this. Preferably in tons but a percentage graphic would do.

 

I need an estimate of the probable total CO2 produced by humans over the twertieth century. A total quantity and an average annual quantity would be helpfull.

 

Prefer online source of peer reviewed info.

 

7.5 GtCO2 / ppm [gigatonnes carbon dioxide per ppm of carbon dioxide]

or 2 GtC / ppm [billion tons carbon atoms per ppm of carbon]

 

Pre-industrial levels (285 ppm) would give an atmospheric pool of CO2 equal to: 2,138 GtCO2.

The levels during glacial times (185 ppm) would translate to a CO2 pool equal to: 1388 GtCO2.

So about 750 gigatonnes of CO2 separates the deep ice age and the peak interglacial levels of CO2.

 

We've added about 110 ppm to preindustrial levels, so that would be...

...more than the same magnitude of change that accompanies a multi-millennial glaciation, but in the opposite direction.

 

So we've added ~825 GtCO2 in less than a couple of centuries.

...but let's not talk about ~50 year lag time for many of the heating effects....

===

 

We're currently emitting over 8 GtC/yr., of which about half is reabsorbed by natural carbon sinks comprised by the oceans and lands, which leaves about 4 GtC per year remaining in the atmosphere, for an increase of about 2 ppm per year. There is more complexity to those numbers, but they are a good reference point for a preliminary overview....

 

The individual natural/biological sinks (and sources) are impossible to measure globally in any given year, but overall it is thought that photosynthetic and other biological or natural "fixing" of carbon is balanced with the decay and decomposition-mediated "release" of carbon [...that whole life and death thing] over the span of decades to centuries. So that still leaves the increasing content coming from our emissions of about 8 billion tons of carbon per year. That agrees with the observed rise of less than 1% a year, but after a hundred or so years, that adds up.

 

And you're right that the natural flux of around 100 GtC/yr each for land and oceans, with natural variability of 10 to 20 or 30 gigatonnes, higher or lower for each, in any given year. If we were to more intentionally manage those large carbon reservoirs, then we could better compensate for our puny emissions; but we don't. In fact we unintentionally are degrading the very carbon sinks, and stimulating the various carbon sources, which contribute to that yearly variability. We are also "filling up" the natural sinks, so soon our emissions may not be cut in half by natural processes, leading to more rapid future increases of atmospheric CO2 levels.

~

[athinker]

"athinks thou doth protest too much"

 

Then why do you respond at all? Your case is not made stronger by beginning with an unprincipled disparagement.

 

 

 

; CO2 has been rising.

Agreed; tempreture has been rising.

Agreed; Bad things might, probably will, be in store because of it.

 

Disputed; human conduct is the cause.

Disputed; changing human conduct is the solution.

 

Agreed; no sidetrack of the disputed issues by discussion of what is agreed.

 

"It's real, serious, important, agreed upon, and fixable"

 

I would call "agreed upon" bad science.

 

I don't expect tempretures to follow in sync with CO2. Don't cast my argument in with other's bad arguments.

 

(snipped)

"These "tipping points" ...can switch from one quantum state into another state with very little notice. And we just don't know enough to calculate how much force it will take to make some switches"

 

And we don't know how near we are to any of these "tipping points" either.

 

Presumptive science is alco bad science. Do tipping points exist? Sure. Presuming that we; are near one, are the cause of tipping, can do something about it and the results are so devestating that we must do something about it is bad science because

 

"we just don't know enough to calculate how much force it will take to make some switches"

 

Which means that we don't know if the "puny" force we are exerting is enough to cause a switch. Don't know if our puny efforts can prevent a switch. Blundering about trying to prevent a switch without knowledge can cause a switch as surely as or CO2 emissions can. Which is to say not very surely.

 

"hysteresis" There's a good fear mongering word. If it tips we might not be able to bring it back due to the "hysteresis" it might have to go through before it finds a stable equilibrium. We might not like the equilibrium it finds. Yea, that's bound to stimulate hysteria.

 

You mentioned fraud and forgery as bad science. You forgot the third f; fallacy. Appeals to authority, to fear of consequences for instance.

 

You admit "The individual natural/biological sinks (and sources) are impossible to measure globally in any given year"

 

Yet you say we should "manage" such things.

 

"but overall it is thought..."

 

"Asserted or claimed by some" would be more accurate.

 

"...that photosynthetic and other biological or natural "fixing" of carbon is balanced with the decay and decomposition-mediated "release" of carbon."

 

This is a claim or assertion that falls apart in evidence that the factors have fluctuated so wildly throughout the past. They are not balanced any more than the number or strength of storms, the number and strength of volcanic eruptions, the amount of calcium carbonate exposed due to erosion is balanced. Add to that fluctuations caused by fluctuating rainfall amounts, drought, bug infestation. No, the natural CO2 flow is not balanced. At least not in any but tens of thousands of years cycles.

 

It may be convienient in certain domains to assume they are balanced. But to apply the conventions of one domain to another is bad science.

 

Should we study the environment more? Sure. Study is good. Could bad things happen if the environment goes about its own willy nilly way? Very likely. Can humans do anything about it? Well it's an enormous monster and we are really puny in comparison but we are clever little monkeys so I wouldn't put it past us. But it's very unlikely we'll solve it if we don't study and understand it and instead apply fear mongering, fallacious, presumptive science to it. But it could happen by chance. Who knows? A German patent clerk may solve what all the climatologists couldn't. It's happened before.

 

But you are right, methinks I doth protest too much.

 

By the way, what do you think of the graph in Al Gore's movie? The one where he rides that little scissor lift. Did you notice the gross distortion in it?

 

Consider that it represented a 600,000 year history of averages of tempretures and CO2. (didn't say what the sample rate was). At that scale what would you expect the length of the graph to be that represent the last 1000 years? The last 100? What was that buisiness at "the recent" end of the graph? Certainly didn't look like a scale representation of the recent past. Looked like a distortion. If it was to the same scale as the rest of the graph it would have to represent at least 25,000 years. Do you think humans have been affecting the CO2 content of ice cores for the last 25,000 years?

 

I think I'd call that fraud.

 

And that poor sad little CGI polar bear that couldn't find an ice flow to climb up on. I'd call that fraud too. I've seen more dead whales washed up on shore than dead polar bears. And whales are endangered, live way out to sea. I'd expect more polar bears washed up in the news if that was happening.

 

But I loved that european airline commercial showing dozens of CGI polar bears plumeting to splatter on the ground because of other airline's "dirty" airplanes. That was hilarious.

 

Did you see the report that the warmists took umbrage to the commercial. I guess they didn't want somebody else trespassing on their fear mongering territory. That's fair I guess. They cultivated the market for that sort of thing after all.

[Essay]

Disputed; human conduct is the cause.

Disputed; changing human conduct is the solution.

 

I would call "agreed upon" bad science.

 

I'd appreciate some examples of how this is disputed or not agreed upon.

 

But I'm glad to hear you don't expect temps and CO2 to follow in sync.

 

Your comments about tipping points indicate you are confusing science with "policy making" as when you say:

Presumptive science is also bad science. Do tipping points exist? Sure. [but] Presuming that we are near one, are the cause of tipping, can do something about it and the results are so devestating that we must do something about it is bad science...

That may be bad policy making, but it is not bad science. Please don't confuse policy making (good or bad), or advocacy for action (good or bad) based on scientific evidence, with the evidence itself.

 

For instance, science tells us we are melting the Arctic, and since the Arctic ice cover drives much of our weather patterns, policy makers should consider whether that is a good idea or not. An open Arctic will allow for more oil drilling, and policy makers may decide that is more important than restoring weather patterns, but neither choice is science (good or bad).

 

Not sure about Al's film; but of similar graphs, I think the "business end" (red part past the end of the blue line?) shows about 7000 years of slowly rising levels followed by the virtually vertical rise for the past century. Are you looking at the tilt of that vertical rise and saying that must be 25,000 years, or the small extra red part that preceeds the vertical line? Guess I'm not sure what segment you're talking about.

~More mananna

[Essay]

This is just a more complete reply, supplementing that last post... for future reference if needed.

 

"athinks thou doth protest too much"

 

Then why do you respond at all? Your case is not made stronger by beginning with an unprincipled disparagement.

~Right, that's why I apologized at the beginning of my reply in this thread. I would like to remain "on topic" and those snarky comments only seemed appropriate in the context of other topics/threads, or at least a quote from those.

===

 

; CO2 has been rising.

Agreed; tempreture has been rising.

Agreed; Bad things might, probably will, be in store because of it.

 

Disputed; human conduct is the cause.

Disputed; changing human conduct is the solution.

....Still need an anchor on which to discuss what you perceive as disputed about human conduct.

===

 

Agreed; no sidetrack of the disputed issues by discussion of what is agreed.

 

"It's real, serious, important, agreed upon, and fixable"

 

I would call "agreed upon" bad science.

~Gosh, y'know [despite my comments on confusing science with policy] the idea that something that is agreed upon would be "bad science" is interesting. Even if the agreed upon thing is proved to be "a fallacy" by some verifiable evidence, that doesn't make the former (wrong) theory, an example of bad science. It is an example of the process of science--as I mentioned, slow, halting, and methodical. Do you know how many models of the atom we have evolved through during the past century? Do you think that all of the previous models were examples of bad science? I think they were examples of how science progresses; evolving an ever deeper and wider understanding of our world and how it works. It would be like calling Newtonian mechanics "bad science" simply because Relativity theory came along.

 

And there is nothing wrong with discussion of what is agreeed upon; it often leads to deeper understanding, when the reasons for agreement are more fully explained.

===

 

I don't expect tempretures to follow in sync with CO2. Don't cast my argument in with other's bad arguments.

~I wasn't talking of "other's bad arguments," but thanks for that clarification about how to read your post. I think I was confusing seasonal fluctuatuions with the natural variability that you mentioned, though the "in sync" question could apply to either.

===

 

(snipped)

"These "tipping points" ...can switch from one quantum state into another state with very little notice. And we just don't know enough to calculate how much force it will take to make some switches"

 

And we don't know how near we are to any of these "tipping points" either.

 

Presumptive science is alco bad science. Do tipping points exist? Sure. Presuming that we; are near one, are the cause of tipping, can do something about it and the results are so devestating that we must do something about it is bad science because

 

"we just don't know enough to calculate how much force it will take to make some switches"

 

Which means that we don't know if the "puny" force we are exerting is enough to cause a switch. Don't know if our puny efforts can prevent a switch. Blundering about trying to prevent a switch without knowledge can cause a switch as surely as or CO2 emissions can.

 

Which is to say not very surely.

 

~I mentioned that our emissions were "puny" compared with the yearly flux of CO2, but not that our effect, or "force we are exerting" on the balance of the system was puny. Plus we affect the system with more than just our ongoing emissions.

 

As you say there is a lot of variation from one year to another; but whatever the "natural" balance would be, it is now always about 1% higher--cumulatively, each year adding another 1%--so after a few decades, it adds up and continues shifting the balance.

===

 

"hysteresis" There's a good fear mongering word. If it tips we might not be able to bring it back due to the "hysteresis" it might have to go through before it finds a stable equilibrium. We might not like the equilibrium it finds. Yea, that's bound to stimulate hysteria.

~LOL, good joke: hysteriaesis....

===

 

You mentioned fraud and forgery as bad science. You forgot the third f; fallacy. Appeals to authority, to fear of consequences for instance.

~So are you saying "authority" and "fear of consequences" are examples of "fallacy," or bad things? That is a great starting point for another "psychology & sociology of GW" post, eh?

===

 

You admit "The individual natural/biological sinks (and sources) are impossible to measure

globally in any given year"

 

Yet you say we should "manage" such things.

 

"but overall it is thought..."

 

"Asserted or claimed by some" would be more accurate.

 

~Right, "Asserted and claimed by some" would include biologists, ecologists, and earth scientists overall; but that is just some of the general population.

 

"...that photosynthetic and other biological or natural "fixing" of carbon is balanced with the decay and decomposition-mediated "release" of carbon."

~Yep, that is a brief outline of the big picture for carbon cycling. It was designed to answer your original post about the numbers on CO2. If you'd like to discuss how well climate science is developed, or how vague my above description of the various carbon pools is, it might be better to try a new or different topic.

They can track the CO2, isotopically, and show what fluxes are happening; it's just too hard and expensive to do it all the time for every square meter of the planet. Is that what you're asking for, or will you accept some extrapolation to the global scale--from the measurements and observations that have been made?

===

 

This is a claim or assertion that falls apart in evidence that the factors have fluctuated so wildly throughout the past. They are not balanced any more than the number or strength of storms, the number and strength of volcanic eruptions, the amount of calcium carbonate exposed due to erosion is balanced. Add to that fluctuations caused by fluctuating rainfall amounts, drought, bug infestation. No, the natural CO2 flow is not balanced. At least not in any but tens of thousands of years cycles.

 

~Well I guess balance is defined by the limits of the system that you look at. Do the graphs of CO2 over "tens of thousands of years" show a balance? Isn't that where the big fluctuations and general trends show up?

One can understand theoretically how a system has evolved to operate in a balanced way, and still see how reality is never perfectly stable and how it is a constant struggle to maintain that balance. It is best described as a process of maintaining equilibrium or homeostasis [hey, another good opportunity to joke about a science-type word].

 

I think the historical proxies for CO2--and the recent measurements, both show evidence for relative historical balance--and recent unbalance, respectively in CO2 levels; but that is open to interpretation and discussion about perspective.

===

 

It may be convienient in certain domains to assume they are balanced. But to apply the conventions of one domain to another is bad science.

 

Should we study the environment more? Sure. Study is good. Could bad things happen if the environment goes about its own willy nilly way? Very likely. Can humans do anything about it? Well it's an enormous monster and we are really puny in comparison but we are clever little monkeys so I wouldn't put it past us. But it's very unlikely we'll solve it if we don't study and understand it and instead apply fear mongering, fallacious, presumptive science to it. But it could happen by chance. Who knows? A German patent clerk may solve what all the climatologists couldn't. It's happened before.

~Yep, just recall those clever little monkeys who, with crude and contested models of the atom, built an atomic bomb. It was sure "funny" when they got a greater yield than expected from the first fusion bomb, since atomic theory was too crude to predict everything, but they progressed.

===

 

But you are right, methinks I doth protest too much.

 

By the way, what do you think of the graph in Al Gore's movie? The one where he rides that little scissor lift. Did you notice the gross distortion in it?

Consider that it represented a 600,000 year history of averages of tempretures and CO2. (didn't say what the sample rate was). At that scale what would you expect the length of the graph to be that represent the last 1000 years? The last 100? What was that buisiness at "the recent" end of the graph? Certainly didn't look like a scale representation of the recent past. Looked like a distortion. If it was to the same scale as the rest of the graph it would have to represent at least 25,000 years. Do you think humans have been affecting the CO2 content of ice cores for the last 25,000 years?

 

I think I'd call that fraud.

 

~Just because you don't understand something at first, please don't jump to labeling it as "fraud." The whole point of the scissor lift was to dramatically show how specifically, in order to keep the recent past "to the same scale as the rest of the graph," the lift was needed. I suppose it "looked like a distortion" to you, but why not get some data to "look" at before you think to "call that fraud," eh?

===

 

And that poor sad little CGI polar bear that couldn't find an ice flow to climb up on. I'd call that fraud too. I've seen more dead whales washed up on shore than dead polar bears.

 

And whales are endangered, live way out to sea. I'd expect more polar bears washed up in the news if that was happening.

 

But I loved that european airline commercial showing dozens of CGI polar bears plumeting to splatter on the ground because of other airline's "dirty" airplanes. That was hilarious.

 

Did you see the report that the warmists took umbrage to the commercial.

NO, nor the commercial

 

I guess they didn't want somebody else trespassing on their fear mongering territory. That's fair I guess. They cultivated the market for that sort of thing after all.

~Lots of charismatic and compelling images that you are talking about there, but as you say:

"Don't cast my argument in with other's bad [irrelevant] arguments."

===

 

But I hope those CO2 numbers (and basic distribution/cycle) can be helpful. If you have any questions about the numbers, or what they mean in relation to the big or long-term picture, ask away.

 

~