Fran Manns wrote:
Present day CO2 level were greatly exceeded by Carboniferous CO2 levels.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Ca...s_climate.html
For the figure see the link.
Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early
Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by
the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to
average CO2 concentrations today!
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to
former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous
atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's
history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary
Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only
time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and
temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
Temperature after C.R. Scotese
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists
today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2
concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.8 times higher than today. The
highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred
during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 19 times higher than
today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological
periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as
they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late
Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2
concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm.
According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot.
Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other
factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global
warming.
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
Faster carbon dioxide emissions will overwhelm capacity of land and
ocean to absorb carbon
By Robert Sanders, Media Relations, 02 August 2005
BERKELEY - One in a new generation of computer climate models that
include the effects of Earth's carbon cycle indicates there are limits
to the planet's ability to absorb increased emissions of carbon
dioxide.
If current production of carbon from fossil fuels continues unabated,
by the end of the century the land and oceans will be less able to take
up carbon than they are today, the model indicates.
The Earth's various sources and sinks for carbon. The land and oceans
can absorb some of the increased carbon from fossil fuel emissions, but
as the emission rate increases, these sinks saturate and become less
effective at removing carbon from the atmosphere. (Graphics by Inez
Fung/UC Berkeley)
"If we maintain our current course of fossil fuel emissions or
accelerate our emissions, the land and oceans will not be able to slow
the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the way they're doing
now," said Inez Y. Fung at the University of California, Berkeley, who
is director of the Berkeley Atmospheric Sciences Center, co-director of
the new Berkeley Institute of the Environment, and professor of earth
and planetary science and of environmental science, policy and
management. "It's all about rates. If the rate of fossil fuel emissions
is too high, the carbon storage capacity of the land and oceans
decreases and climate warming accelerates."
Fung is lead author of a paper describing the climate model results
that appears this week in the Early Online Edition of the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Fung was a member of the
National Academy of Sciences panel on global climate change that issued
a major report for President Bush in 2001 claiming, [ . . . ]
For the rest of this artilce see:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...2_carbon.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0804050702.htm
There should be respectable clearing house for sorting and sifting what
goes into climate modelling with respect to imbalances but
unfortunately even the basics of climate modelling emerging from
seasonal cyclical changes are incorrect therefore it is pointless
attempting to compare current climate tendencies with long term
historical data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Daylight/darkness asymmetry has more of an impact on climate imbalance
when orbital geometry becomes more elliptical while still retaining
Kepler's second law and while there would be many who would bluff and
bluster their way into saying they recognise the asymmetry,not one
single website proposes the actual and correct mechanism for variations
that presently exist.
My God,the material is so enjoyable and interesting when the proper
orientations and motions are put in place for climate modelling and
with all due respect to men who genuinely try to make sense of what is
occuring,the standard is only so good as recognition of what is
acceptable and what thereby setting a far higher intellectual standard
than what presently exists.
The above wikipedia treatment has several major errors in principle,not
small mistakes but ones which make climate modelling or deductions from
historical climate data worthless.Again,nobody needs to be told that
there is a climate imbalance for people have already worked it out for
themselves and all the faux 'scientific' concerns cannot disguise that
meterologists and climatologists have yet to model seasonal cyclical
changes correctly having adopted the erroneous astronomical models of
18th century celestial cataloguers.
Or another way,people are not doing their jobs.