Bob Lee Swagger wrote:

"What was the climate like at 2000 ppm ?"


Reply:
It is thought that average Earth temperature was about 10 degrees
warmer towards the Poles, leveling out near the Equator, in other
words, the equator was not much warmer then today, most of the
increase being noticed in the higher latitudes.
The Mezozoic Era runs from about 250 million years ago up to
65 million years ago and includes the Triassic, Jurassic, and
Cretaceous Periods. A fascinating period of time on Earth if you like
dinosaurs like Tyrannosaurus Rex and Triceratops and Velociraptor etc.
It's thought that ice caps may still have existed, but much smaller
and seasonal then now. Rainfall would have generally been higher, due
to higher humidity, but there would still have been a few desert
areas as well.
Plant life was lush and thick, food for the pant eating
dinosaurs, Dinosaurs ruled the world, and the first mammals, that
would ultimitely lead to us, also appeared in the world at this time.
Somehow these little mammals survived whatever wiped out the
dinosaurs. (One or more meteorite impacts perhaps had something to do
with it. ( Chicxulub)).
It's believed that they lived in burrows under the ground. That may
have helped them.. I don't know.
It is believed that CO2 was many times higher then today... at 2000
ppmv, about 500 % higher then now, and oxygen was maybe 3 - 5 %
lower.

There are many sources of study on the subject of Paleoclimatology
on the Internet. The history of the Earth is really quite interesting.

Bob Lee Swagger wrote:

"CO2 is actually toxic in high concentrations. I don't know about 2000 ppm
but it sounds dodgy to me. Higher than that could be scary. Let's not
shoot
for it, ay? "



Reply: Right now, we are at about 380 or 385 ppmv (parts per
million)

2000 ppmv is only TWO TENTHS of 1%. ( point 2)
(.2)

Well to get you a little dizzy in a crowded room you
would need 1% CO2 in the air. 10,000 ppmv
You might think it was the three drinks you had.

2% would increased blood pressure and pulse rate, and
causes reduced hearing. 20,000 ppmv
8% will cause headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor
and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten
minutes. 80,000 ppmv

All this information is online here on the Internet, and in
textbooks.


More then that can of course kill you.
" However, Adaptation to increased levels of CO2 occurs in humans.
Continuous inhalation of CO2 can be tolerated at three percent
inspired concentrations for at least one month and four percent
inspired concentrations for over a week. It was suggested that 2.0
percent inspired concentrations could be used for closed air spaces
(e.g. a submarine) since the adaptation is physiological and
reversible. Decrement in performance or in normal physical activity
does not happen at this level."
From Lambertsen, C. J. (1971). "Carbon Dioxide Tolerance and
Toxicity". Environmental Biomedical Stress Data Center, Institute for
Environmental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center
(Philadelphia, PA) IFEM Report No. 2-71. http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/3861.
Retrieved on 2008-05-02.
^ Glatte Jr H. A., Motsay G. J., Welch B. E. (1967). "Carbon Dioxide
Tolerance Studies". Brooks AFB, TX School of Aerospace Medicine
Technical Report SAM-TR-67-77. http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/6045.
Retrieved on 2008-05-02.

But you don't have to worry even at much higher then 2000 ppmv.
which is what it was 100 million years ago during the dinosaurs.

Because,,, 2000 ppmv is only TWO TENTHS of 1%.
( point 2) (.2)

You would need 10,000 ppm to even come to 1% CO2. That ain't ever
going to happen. And even if it did, like studies show, humans have
the ability to physiologically adapt to 1%.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration says
that average exposure for healthy adults during an eight-hour work day
should not exceed 5,000 ppm (0.5%). That's more then twice what the
level was back in the time of the dinosaurs. So you don't have to
worry and lose any sleep.

In other words, even if CO2 in the atmosphere was at 2000 ppm, and
everything else was the same as now, you would notice nothing
different from what you notice now.
Therefore, you can relax.

On May 13, 2:21*pm, Catoni wrote:
On May 12, 11:54*pm, Last Post wrote:





On May 12, 4:51*pm, Roger Coppock wrote: CO2 Level at Least 800,000-Year High!

According to the Earth System Research Laboratory of the
US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, the May
monthly mean CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa was
389.47 ppmv. *This is a new maximum for this data set,
the longest term and most frequently referenced CO2 data.

Also, according to the IPCC WG1 AR4 list of robust findings:

* *"Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4,
* * and their associated positive radiative forcing,
* * far exceed those determined from ice core
* * measurements spanning the last 650,000 years."

•• More AGW hogwash
* * NOAA takes measurements on top of an active volcano

* * Talk about loading the dice.
* * Then they talk about "positive radiative forcing"
* * which is nothing more than a smokescreen for
* * junk science.

- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor has anyone else provide one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.

Yes, atmosphereic CO2 is indeed monitored from the largest active
volcano in the world.


It's a near dormant volcano. Lots of expensive equipment up there. No
way would they put that there if they thought there was a chance of it
becoming active any time soon. The last outgassing event was 1984.

Not what I would think to be the brightest
idea. What they say they try to do, is to make adjustments for out-
gassing of CO2 from the volcanoe. How well they are able to do that,
how they do it, and how precise their adjusments are, I'm not sure.
There should certainly be questions asked and answered.


The questions have been asked and answered and the data show no spikes
that would be consistent with an outgassing event. Just the same
pattern of seasonal variation every year. The site is chosen because
of its remoteness from CO2 emitting activity and its height.

* *In my opinion, there are far better places in the world to measure
atmospheric CO2 then the top of an active volcanoe which belches that
very gas from the crater and several vents and cones and the
occasional lava flow.


Have you written to NOAA with a detailed set of proposals showing
comparative feasibility for each of the sites?


* *What bright mind came up with that location ? *


Charles Keeling, apparently.

And who were the
bright minds that agreed to it?

His peers. It has stood the test of time. This predated interest in
mitigation policy by a very long time.

Fran

On May 12, 3:51*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
CO2 Level at Least 800,000-Year High!

According to the Earth System Research Laboratory of the
US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, the May
monthly mean CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa was
389.47 ppmv. *This is a new maximum for this data set,
the longest term and most frequently referenced CO2 data.

Also, according to the IPCC WG1 AR4 list of robust findings:

* *"Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4,
* * and their associated positive radiative forcing,
* * far exceed those determined from ice core
* * measurements spanning the last 650,000 years."

The EPICA Dome C record extends this to 800,000 years.
Please see data from Lüthi, D et al. (2008) athttp://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.710901?format=html

For a graph and curve fit of data taken at Mauna Loa,
please see:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/CO2-6DegreesFreedom.jpg

Clearly, the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising
exponentially. *To see this, compare the trend of the
red colored points on the graph I have provided with
a straight line.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
These data may be found at:ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

The yearly means of the 607 points of monthly data follow:
YEAR CO2_ppmv
1958 315.33 * 8 months of data
1959 315.98
1960 316.91
1961 317.64
1962 318.45
1963 318.99
1964 319.20 * 9 months of data
1965 320.04
1966 321.38
1967 322.16
1968 323.04
1969 324.62
1970 325.68
1971 326.32
1972 327.45
1973 329.68
1974 330.17
1975 331.13 * 11 months of data
1976 332.05
1977 333.78
1978 335.41
1979 336.78
1980 338.68
1981 340.11
1982 341.22
1983 342.84
1984 344.22 * 11 months of data
1985 345.87
1986 347.19
1987 348.98
1988 351.45
1989 352.90
1990 354.16
1991 355.48
1992 356.27
1993 356.95
1994 358.64
1995 360.63
1996 362.37
1997 363.47
1998 366.50
1999 368.14
2000 369.40
2001 371.07
2002 373.17
2003 375.78
2004 377.52
2005 379.76
2006 381.85
2007 383.71
2008 385.57
2009 388.15 * 4 months of data

[Watch the fossil fools dust off an ancient archive of
pseudo-science and arcane mathematics in a lame attempt
to challenge these basic facts. *That's entertainment!

One lie that fossil fools frequently fib is that there
is no relationship between CO2 and global mean surface
temperature, or that this relationship has broken down
recently. *For the truth, a scatter-plot of this strong
relationship, please see:

* *http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/TempVsCO2.jpg

N= 51, *R^2 = 0.78
Non-Zero Slope F-statistic: *177.709 on 1 and 49 DF,
p-value: 2.2e-16 *]

Then why aren't temperatures at an 800,000 year high? Huh? Explain
that one.

Catoni wrote:
Fran- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fran... you might want to check your math... Unless my math skills
have fallen off very sharply as I age, (inevitable, over time I
suppose), then 2000
is 526.3... % of 380 . Lets say 526 %to make it simple shall we? We
really don't need use decimal points in this case.

You still haven't explained why anyone should possibly care. lol

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Fran wrote:

On May 13, 1:59 pm, Catoni wrote:
Fran- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fran... you might want to check your math... Unless my math skills
have fallen off very sharply as I age, (inevitable, over time I
suppose), then 2000
is 526.3... % of 380 . Lets say 526 %to make it simple shall we? We
really don't need use decimal points in this case.



You said: "but it has been almost 600 % higher then ...

To make this clear, if my wage is $100 per week and my friend's wage
is $200 per week then my friend's wage is 200% *OF* my wage (ie my
wage * 2) but only 100% HIGHER than my wage .... (the difference
between our two wages expressed as a proportion of my wage)


Thus


the difference between the higher figure and the lower figure
(2000-388) is 1612 ppmv. 1612ppmv expressed as a proportion of
388ppmv is 415.46391% (truncation to six places) That is also the
amount it is higher than current.

Or .. if we wish to say that atmospheric CO2 is now 385ppmv, then...
it would come to about 519.5%

To be honest, my original rough guess of 600% was indeed wrong as
well. Both of us need a math refresher course I guess.

Double checking.... It looks to me as if I am correct now. Can you
see
where I might be mistaken Fran?


see above


I can't remember what it is you teach Fran,,,but it's not math I
take it..


It's not, but I'm right anyway.

My point is that in the last 500 million years... CO2 has been
much
much higher then now...

If my point was that the Sumerians invented cuneiform script, how
would this enlighten anyone on the significance of current and future
CO2 levels to current and future humans?

During the height of the reign of the dinosaurs, as much as 500%
and more, then it is now.


Yes, and then they died.

And what was the reason in your opinion?

If you take the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere for that time
period, then right now, we are pretty well close to the bottom of
the chart..

You keep saying this but why is this relevant now?

Rapid plant development perhaps?

Relatively very little CO2 in the atmosphere... I suppose
that's why they call it a "trace"gas... because there is only a
trace of it... Thank goodness too, or we would have no
photosynthesis..


You should put this to someone who thinks it feasible and desirable
to remove all trace of Co2 in the atmosphere. I don't know how we
could do that and don't see any reason for trying.

There is no way, not with all the money or technology on this planet.

All those phantasmagoria of carbon sequestration is an absolute hoax.
For each ton of CO2 you sequestrate, another ton of CO2 is outgassing
from oceans or land to keep the partial pressure in balance.

Um, no.

Last Post wrote:
On May 12, 4:51 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
CO2 Level at Least 800,000-Year High!

According to the Earth System Research Laboratory of the
US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, the May
monthly mean CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa was
389.47 ppmv. This is a new maximum for this data set,
the longest term and most frequently referenced CO2 data.

Also, according to the IPCC WG1 AR4 list of robust findings:

"Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4,
and their associated positive radiative forcing,
far exceed those determined from ice core
measurements spanning the last 650,000 years."

•• More AGW hogwash
NOAA takes measurements on top of an active volcano

Talk about loading the dice.
Then they talk about "positive radiative forcing"
which is nothing more than a smokescreen for
junk science.

- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor has anyone else provide one
iota of valid data for global warming

A completely insane lie.

nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.

A completely insane lie.

Catoni wrote:
On May 12, 11:54 pm, Last Post wrote:
On May 12, 4:51 pm, Roger Coppock wrote: CO2
Level at Least 800,000-Year High!

According to the Earth System Research Laboratory of the
US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, the May
monthly mean CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa was
389.47 ppmv. This is a new maximum for this data set,
the longest term and most frequently referenced CO2 data.

Also, according to the IPCC WG1 AR4 list of robust findings:

"Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4,
and their associated positive radiative forcing,
far exceed those determined from ice core
measurements spanning the last 650,000 years."

•• More AGW hogwash
NOAA takes measurements on top of an active volcano

Talk about loading the dice.
Then they talk about "positive radiative forcing"
which is nothing more than a smokescreen for
junk science.

- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor has anyone else provide one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.

Yes, atmosphereic CO2 is indeed monitored from the largest active
volcanoe in the world. Not what I would think to be the brightest
idea. What they say they try to do, is to make adjustments for out-
gassing of CO2 from the volcanoe. How well they are able to do that,
how they do it, and how precise their adjusments are, I'm not sure.
There should certainly be questions asked and answered.

In my opinion, there are far better places in the world to measure
atmospheric CO2 then the top of an active volcanoe which belches that
very gas from the crater and several vents and cones and the
occasional lava flow.

What bright mind came up with that location ? And who were the
bright minds that agreed to it?

Funny, the volcano doesn't show up in the data. They match everywhere
else. lol

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:

CO2 Level at Least 800,000-Year High!

According to the Earth System Research Laboratory of the
US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, the May
monthly mean CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa was
389.47 ppmv. This is a new maximum for this data set,
the longest term and most frequently referenced CO2 data.

Also, according to the IPCC WG1 AR4 list of robust findings:

"Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4,
and their associated positive radiative forcing,
far exceed those determined from ice core
measurements spanning the last 650,000 years."

The EPICA Dome C record extends this to 800,000 years.
Please see data from Lüthi, D et al. (2008) at
http://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAE...01?format=html

For a graph and curve fit of data taken at Mauna Loa,
please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/CO2-6DegreesFreedom.jpg

Clearly, the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising
exponentially. To see this, compare the trend of the
red colored points on the graph I have provided with
a straight line.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
These data may be found at:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

The yearly means of the 607 points of monthly data follow:
YEAR CO2_ppmv
1958 315.33 8 months of data
1959 315.98
1960 316.91
1961 317.64
1962 318.45
1963 318.99
1964 319.20 9 months of data
1965 320.04
1966 321.38
1967 322.16
1968 323.04
1969 324.62
1970 325.68
1971 326.32
1972 327.45
1973 329.68
1974 330.17
1975 331.13 11 months of data
1976 332.05
1977 333.78
1978 335.41
1979 336.78
1980 338.68
1981 340.11
1982 341.22
1983 342.84
1984 344.22 11 months of data
1985 345.87
1986 347.19
1987 348.98
1988 351.45
1989 352.90
1990 354.16
1991 355.48
1992 356.27
1993 356.95
1994 358.64
1995 360.63
1996 362.37
1997 363.47
1998 366.50
1999 368.14
2000 369.40
2001 371.07
2002 373.17
2003 375.78
2004 377.52
2005 379.76
2006 381.85
2007 383.71
2008 385.57
2009 388.15 4 months of data

[Watch the fossil fools dust off an ancient archive of
pseudo-science and arcane mathematics in a lame attempt
to challenge these basic facts. That's entertainment!

One lie that fossil fools frequently fib is that there
is no relationship between CO2 and global mean surface
temperature, or that this relationship has broken down
recently. For the truth, a scatter-plot of this strong
relationship, please see:

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/TempVsCO2.jpg

N= 51, R^2 = 0.78
Non-Zero Slope F-statistic: 177.709 on 1 and 49 DF,
p-value: 2.2e-16 ]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

READ THIS, YOU MORON!

Dear Peter,

... I recommend to read my to papers in which
this is explained in detail: Jaworowski et al. 1992 "Do glaciers
tell a true atmospheric story?" The Science of the Total
Environment, 114: 227-284; and Jaworowski 1994 "Ancient atmosphere
- Validity of the ice record" Environmental Science and Pollution
Research, 161-171. These papers, based on my perusal of
practically all literature on ice cores at that time, conclude that
the ice cores and the air bubbles in them are not suitable for
reconstruction of the chemical composition of the pre-industrial
and ancient atmosphere

Best wishes,
Zbigniew


Dear Peter,

...
In the firn layer that is up to about 100
meters thick there are many impermeable layers which hinder the
above mentioned ventillation and diffusion. I discribed this in
several papers. However, even the deepest ice contains a network
of films of liquid
water, through which the gases may migrate. This water is probably
slowly seeping down the Antarctic ice sheet, forming great lakes of
liquid below its bottom.

Best,
Zbigniew

Ancient Atmosphere - Validity of Ice Records
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/frank.pdf

Sorry, k00ksite.




"Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2"
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

Sorry, k00ksite.



ANOTHER GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD EXPOSED
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/IceCoreSprg97.pdf

Sorry, k00ksite.



Attempts to support the global warming thesis with analyses of the
carbon dioxide content of air bubbles in glacial ice samples, are
based on fudged data and ignorance of the physical processes of
glacial ice formation.

Excerpt:
"Fudging the CO2 Data
Until 1985, the published CO2 readings from air bubbles in
pre-industrial ice ranged from 160 to about 700 ppmv, and occasionally
even up to 2,450 ppmv. After 1985, high readings
disappeared from the publications!"


READ THIS, YOU MORON!
And don't hoax us into believing it has been debunked!
Pull the other leg!

Hey, petey found a crank! lol Does this mean you no longer believwe that
climate scientists "should be shot down as of this moment?"

wrote:
On May 12, 3:51 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
CO2 Level at Least 800,000-Year High!

According to the Earth System Research Laboratory of the
US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, the May
monthly mean CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa was
389.47 ppmv. This is a new maximum for this data set,
the longest term and most frequently referenced CO2 data.

Also, according to the IPCC WG1 AR4 list of robust findings:

"Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4,
and their associated positive radiative forcing,
far exceed those determined from ice core
measurements spanning the last 650,000 years."

The EPICA Dome C record extends this to 800,000 years.
Please see data from Lüthi, D et al. (2008)
athttp://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.710901?format=html

For a graph and curve fit of data taken at Mauna Loa,
please see:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/CO2-6DegreesFreedom.jpg

Clearly, the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising
exponentially. To see this, compare the trend of the
red colored points on the graph I have provided with
a straight line.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
These data may be found
at:ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

The yearly means of the 607 points of monthly data follow:
YEAR CO2_ppmv
1958 315.33 8 months of data
1959 315.98
1960 316.91
1961 317.64
1962 318.45
1963 318.99
1964 319.20 9 months of data
1965 320.04
1966 321.38
1967 322.16
1968 323.04
1969 324.62
1970 325.68
1971 326.32
1972 327.45
1973 329.68
1974 330.17
1975 331.13 11 months of data
1976 332.05
1977 333.78
1978 335.41
1979 336.78
1980 338.68
1981 340.11
1982 341.22
1983 342.84
1984 344.22 11 months of data
1985 345.87
1986 347.19
1987 348.98
1988 351.45
1989 352.90
1990 354.16
1991 355.48
1992 356.27
1993 356.95
1994 358.64
1995 360.63
1996 362.37
1997 363.47
1998 366.50
1999 368.14
2000 369.40
2001 371.07
2002 373.17
2003 375.78
2004 377.52
2005 379.76
2006 381.85
2007 383.71
2008 385.57
2009 388.15 4 months of data

[Watch the fossil fools dust off an ancient archive of
pseudo-science and arcane mathematics in a lame attempt
to challenge these basic facts. That's entertainment!

One lie that fossil fools frequently fib is that there
is no relationship between CO2 and global mean surface
temperature, or that this relationship has broken down
recently. For the truth, a scatter-plot of this strong
relationship, please see:

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/TempVsCO2.jpg

N= 51, R^2 = 0.78
Non-Zero Slope F-statistic: 177.709 on 1 and 49 DF,
p-value: 2.2e-16 ]

Then why aren't temperatures at an 800,000 year high? Huh? Explain
that one.

Why? Are you claiming only one thing at a time can affect climate? lol