ppm in the past have been 8000 or better- and again Simple explanations for those: earth's geography caused lots of warming. Current geography is cold with Antartica being a freezer and Greenland slowly moving northward and becoming more of a freezer. Also the Panama being closed prevents the Pacific from warming the bottom of the Atlantic so we have 32-ish degree water at the bottom of the ocean.
ice core samples prove that CO2 always rises AFTER temps rise- 800 years after- proving that rising temps are what cause rising CO2- not the other way around-
True. But here's some graphs of that relationship http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/ Notice that the graphs generally show about 100 ppm rise in CO2 for every 10C rise in temperature. Looking at the graph that is second to the bottom:
there is 280ppm plus or minus of CO2 up to the present. But the CO2 rose past 400 recently. That means there would need to be 12C of warming in the last 800 years to cause the 120 ppm rise.
There was not 12C of warming in the last 800 years, case closed.
man’s production of CO2 amounts to just 3.4% of that 0.04%
Definitely not correct. There is production in nature about 30 times man's. But there's also uptake in nature of 30 times man's. There is no significant manmade uptake. Considering both natural production and uptake, there is far more production from man than nature.
There are estimates that about half of man’s emissions are taken up by nature.
That is not correct either. There is current 400 ppm of CO2. The natural equilibrium is about 280-300, if mankind was not around. The amount of uptake of man's CO2 is about 1/30 of the 100-120ppm of "excess". So nature is taking up about 1/30 of man's CO2, not 1/2.
[[ppm in the past have been 8000 or better- and again
Simple explanations for those: earth’s geography caused lots of warming. Current geography is cold with Antartica being a freezer and Greenland slowly moving northward and becoming more of a freezer. Also the Panama being closed prevents the Pacific from warming the bottom of the Atlantic so we have 32-ish degree water at the bottom of the ocean.]]
That explains nothing- the statement was that alarmists are crying about 400 or so being the ‘upper limit’ - the ‘point of no return’
[[There was not 12C of warming in the last 800 years, case closed. ]]
Lol- more like “Mind Closed’ Warming is not the only cause of rising CO2 Nor is man’s production the only cause-
[[man’s production of CO2 amounts to just 3.4% of that 0.04%
Definitely not correct. ]]
No that’s fairly accurate- those figures come from many sources- even pro ‘man-caused’ climate change sources-
[[Definitely not correct. There is production in nature about 30 times man’s.]]
Really? How do you get 30% out of the following?
“2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.”
[[there is 280ppm plus or minus of CO2 up to the present. But the CO2 rose past 400 recently. That means there would need to be 12C of warming in the last 800 years to cause the 120 ppm rise.
There was not 12C of warming in the last 800 years, case closed. ]]
Case closed huh?
“A recent paper published in Nature Climate Change finds a disconnect between man-made CO2 and atmospheric levels of CO2, demonstrating that despite a sharp 25% increase in man-made CO2 emissions since 2003, the growth rate in atmospheric CO2 has slowed sharply since 2002/2003. The data shows that while the growth rate of man-made emissions was relatively stable from 1990-2003, the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 surged up to the record El Nino of 1997-1998. Conversely, growth in man-made emissions surged ~25% from 2003-2011, but the change in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 has flatlined since 1999 along with global temperatures.”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/04/new-paper-demonstrates-temperature.html
And:
“An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that “CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2” The paper finds the “overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere,” in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect of ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures. “
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/08/new-blockbuster-paper-finds-man-made.html
[[if mankind was not around. The amount of uptake of man’s CO2 is about 1/30 of the 100-120ppm of “excess”.]]
Pretty bold statement when the above scientific research states otherwise