The Defect in the "Climate Has Always Changed" Argument

[Weisshund]

@wolfpup

Those links do nothing to support your nonsensical argument and it’s not clear why you think they’re even relevant to the discussion. It’s almost like you just posted them at random without reading them first. I’ll repeat my statement below, but first, let’s get past some more incorrect information that you posted:

The links do, I am not sure why you think they do not, sorry if they dont work for you or something, they were online last week, have you tried reloading them later?

So again, my question was this: Kindly explain how levels can drop to 180 ppm and an ice age can occur when CO2 is presently soaring to 400 ppm

Please explain how we can have an ice age with that huge CO2 spike shown in the second graph I linked,

Because, man can not sustain it.
Postpone it for a short period of time, which i have never said man could not, but sustain it, for the how ever many millions of year it would take for Earth to exit it’s current cycle?

Man will have long long ceased to put stuff into the air by then.
Either he gets smart (doubtful)
He runs out of his carbon source (Most likely)
He kills all his kind off (Next most likely, up for debate, maybe 1st most likely?)

In any case, man’s short term screwing with things ceases.
Short term in a geologic sense

The Earth will then regain balance, in relatively short order.
Again short being in a geologic sense, a minor set back.
How long? I’m not sure, assuming we just go for broke and shoot the whole wad?
5,000 7,500 years off schedule maybe? Maybe less?
There were actually some studies on how long we could purposely offset it, but i do not know how good the studies were or how spot on their numbers were, and they were based off of purposely blowing off all our available CO2 off into the atmosphere.

But regardless end result, the artificial unsustained boost of CO2 gets fixed back till it comes down to what ever the number is for a natural balance at any given time.

By what mechanism?

The same mechanism that would otherwise strike a different balance rather than the enhanced one we have at the moment and would cause a very rapid tanking of CO2 levels that end a glacial/interglacial period

And because Earth is physically going through a cycle where it has ice ages, it is still going to be in that cycle, it is not going to stop that cycle.

[GIGObuster]

@Weisshund

But regardless end result, the artificial unsustained boost of CO2 gets fixed back till it comes down to what ever the number is for a natural balance at any given time.

By what mechanism?

The same mechanism that would otherwise strike a different balance rather than the enhanced one we have at the moment and would cause a very rapid tanking of CO2 levels that end a glacial/interglacial period

And because Earth is physically going through a cycle where it has ice ages, it is still going to be in that cycle, it is not going to stop that cycle.

A mechanism that takes a long tome to get rid of the excess CO2.

And still it does not avoid that humanity will suffer a lot of unrest while getting through a new state of affairs.

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they’re simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

Of course, while one could expect an Ice age later, our oceans will not be a place for life as we know it.

[wolfpup]

@Weisshund

The links do, I am not sure why you think they do not, sorry if they dont work for you or something, they were online last week, have you tried reloading them later?
Because, man can not sustain it.
Postpone it for a short period of time, which i have never said man could not, but sustain it, for the how ever many millions of year it would take for Earth to exit it’s current cycle?

Man will have long long ceased to put stuff into the air by then …

… But regardless end result, the artificial unsustained boost of CO2 gets fixed back till it comes down to what ever the number is for a natural balance at any given time.

By what mechanism?

The same mechanism that would otherwise strike a different balance rather than the enhanced one we have at the moment and would cause a very rapid tanking of CO2 levels that end a glacial/interglacial period

And because Earth is physically going through a cycle where it has ice ages, it is still going to be in that cycle, it is not going to stop that cycle.

This is unsubstantiated nonsense that demonstrates a total lack of scientific understanding. Furthermore, you don’t even appear to be reading (or comprehending) your own links. When I asked for evidence for your ridiculous claims, you posted (in #19) the following:

1. A link to the gsu.edu site which is an “overview of the climate literacy labs” on that site. It might be a good primer for you, but it adds nothing to the discussion and you don’t appear to have read or understood it. It goes on to discuss “the profound impact that human activities, primarily through emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere [have had on] atmospheric processes, energy budgets, etc.” This is true and underscores the basic problem; it says nothing to support your nonsense claims about the inevitability of an ice age.

2. A link to antarcticglaciers.org which reminds us that “environmental change is having rapid consequences in Antarctica” and that the Antarctic is losing total ice mass at an accelerating rate due to global warming. This is also true and also underscored another aspect of the basic problem; it says nothing to support your nonsense claims either.

You’re making claims without basis and contrary to all scientific understanding. I feel like I’m wasting my time having this discussion unless you do some more reading about the basics. Ice ages are triggered by relatively small forces that start to drive down CO2 levels which then becomes self-sustaining over several tens of thousands of years; it’s the CO2 that is the primary driver. The cycle reduces CO2 from about 280 ppm to 180 by absorption in the carbon sinks, mainly the oceans and some terrestrial sinks.

But CO2 is now at 400 ppm and rising; we’re pretty much committed to at least 600 ppm under most scenarios and over 1000 ppm before stabilization in the worst-case one. Where is this CO2 going to go when glaciation has to start with cooling oceans, and the oceans are warming instead and already getting saturated and losing their absorption capacity and by 2100 terrestrial sinks may start to become net carbon emitters themselves? The new CO2 comes from sources sequestered in fossil fuels hundreds of millions of years ago. It’s not going back there by itself. For the first time in the history of homo sapiens on this planet, we have fundamentally disrupted the natural carbon and glaciation cycles that have operated for over a million years.

[Weisshund]

@GIGObuster

A mechanism that takes a long tome to get rid of the excess CO2.

And still it does not avoid that humanity will suffer a lot of unrest while getting through a new state of affairs.

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

Short in geologic terms, an Eternity in human life span terms, yes.
But i never argued that

Of course, while one could expect an Ice age later, our oceans will not be a place for life as we know it.

Perhaps not, depending on how you look at it.

Last ice age started like 2 1/2 mya.
Prior to it, you have to admit there was a lot of diverse life running around.
Now depending on opinion, we were also around just a bit before that, depending on how accurate dating is
Maybe not our modern adaptation, but still us, so we as an animal got from there to here.

I think you would agree, if you were to take a reasonably resourceful group of modern humans and put them probably any period that has edible terrestrial life, they would probably do pretty well for themselves.

On the other hand, modern civilization and society, no, you are correct, not so much.
You could take 6,000 years of modern civilization and population booming and flush it.

Man the animal, the mammal, would do quite well, it’s a wonderful design by nature
to survive and adapt to almost anything, man the civilized being, not so well, and Earth as a whole? Probably wouldnt bat an eye.

[GIGObuster]

@Weisshund

Short in geologic terms, an Eternity in human life span terms, yes.
But i never argued that

But the bulk of scientists and me do, because it is the point for our current civilization.

@Weisshund

Perhaps not, depending on how you look at it.

Last ice age started like 2 1/2 mya.

[snip]
That is nice, but the evidence points to warming as the issue now, not cooling. And the warming is already affecting the earth and the contamination brought by fossil fuels is still an item.

You talk about adaptation but the issue you seem to avoid is who will pay for that adaptation. It seems that you do not worry about the cost because you seem to think like Dr. Strangelove, it looks like you are assuming you will be one of the selected few to go under ground so there is no need for you to worry. But it is not likely you will be one of those selected. No, the best thing to do is to work to limit the damage, because we want to keep most of the civilization that we have and to give a better one to the future generations. Thank you very much.