Some interesting (and inconvenient) CO2 facts from well known geologist Ian Plimer:

- Five of the six major ice ages occurred when the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) content was up to 1,000
times higher than at present.

- One big volcanic eruption can add as much CO2 to the atmosphere in a day as humans do in a year.

- Once fossil fuel is burned, the released CO2 does not remain permanently in the atmosphere, but over a few years is sequestered into the oceans, living organisms and sediments.

- If all of the world’s fossils fuels were burned, atmospheric CO2 would not even rise to twice the current level.

- At present, the Earth’s atmosphere is starved of CO2, and should atmospheric CO2 drop from the current 385 parts per million (ppm) to less than 200 ppm, plant life will cease.

- On all time scales, then, there is no correlation between temperature and CO2. If there is no correlation, then there can be no causation.

The article with even more facts is here.

Kramer

__________________
“We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. … The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism.”

TheNation, June 7, 2007

BTW, Plimer's recent book was not well received by climate scientists for many glaring errors, fraud, and blatant misunderstandings were found throughout the work. He also refuses to present his sources.

really, care to name those ice ages? When were they in earths history? Its quite impossible to answer this without knowing those details.

???? Simply false. There is no truth to this claim whatsoever.

If by a few years you mean decades then yes, that is sort of true. It does depend on carbon sinks, which BTW, we are destroying at an alarming rate. Deforestation is one major carbon sink that is rapidly dissapearing, and the other major carbon sink is the oceans, which have a limit to the amount of CO2 they can absorb before they start emitting CO2, and worse, methane.

hmmm, id like to see the numbers on that. But regardless, the crucial point here has to do with tipping points brought on by positive feedback loops. Here are a few things that should concern us.

- the melting of the arctic increases albedo, amplifying warming.
- the melting of the permafrost releases methane, a GHG 40x more powerful than CO2.
- the acidification of the oceans can result in the breakdown of clathrates releases unimaginable amounts of both CO2 and methane.
- warming increase evaporation which increase water vapor, the most abundant GHG.

there are more, and even more that we have no idea of. So its not just a matter of putting all the co2 in the atmosphere and imagining the temperature going up linearly to a maximum and everything is jiggy. The issue is what sort of imbalances and tipping points even a small amount of warming can cause, and what are the feedback loops that cause the release of non-fossil fuel GHGs.... Mr. Plimer does not mention these very important facts.

???? Starved of CO2? i don't think so. Where is this "fact" from?

There is a very clear correlation between CO2 and temperature - and we also know quite well that the causation in this relationship works both ways. I.e., CO2 causes temperature increase, and the reverse, temperature increase can cause CO2 emissions. (positive feedback).

Plimer has been torn to pieces by the scientific community for his flawed work on climate science. Perhaps he should stick to geology.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

I'd have to say Pilmer is consistent. He is an outspoken critic of both Creationists and Global Alarmists. Both are faith based science.

His book has been widely debunked by scientists from many different disciplines. How do you account for that? Conspiracy?

If the science in his book is correct there would be a long history of sources to back it up, but there is nothing. (and he refuses to provide any sources upon request). In some cases he based his conclusions on outright, long known fraudulent data.

The irony here is that Plimer has only displayed a knack for using the same sort of debunked "science" one often comes across in the annals of "creation science".

Above i directly challenged the scientific claims made by Plimer, perhaps you could defend Plimer's conclusions?

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

Here's a scientific fact for you. The natural temperature of the Earth is much warmer than it is today. We are still in an Ice Age. The Earth is suppose to be much much warmer.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

Actually the optimum average temperature for earth (in order to support life as we know it) is about 14 degrees celsius.

There is no such thing as a "natural" temperature for earth, as any temperature on earth in the entire paleoclimate record can be defined as natural.

How exactly is the earth supposed to be much warmer? If the earth is "supposed" to be any temperature it would only be the temperature required for any existing life to thrive.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

From your link: Fascinating as these questions doubtless are, I am unqualified to answer them. Unlike Ian Plimer, I make no pretence of being a climate scientist. I am a journalist, who, among other tasks, reports and comments on the findings of climate science. My answer to questions 1-13 is: "you're asking the wrong person".

LOL

Fascinating. A journalist wants to debate Pilmer, only after Pilmer answers some handpicked questions, but refuses to answer Pilmer's questions.

LOL

I don't need to defend anything. Those seeking to destroy America need to answer some tough questions, number one: Where's the science behind your beliefs?

A journalist requesting sources from an author is entirely commonplace, as is an author providing them. If you had followed this story you would know that Plimer is the one who asked for a debate, not Monbiot. Monbiot agreed to the debate only on the condition that Plimer qualified his science. That is not an odd request by any means.

And still Plimer refuses to say where he got his 'science' from. Very telling.


I don't have any beliefs regarding science. Science is either valid and sound or its not. The science regarding global warming and its anthropogenic forcings is literally all over the internet. I am prepared to discuss any and all aspects of it with anybody. What part of it do you dispute?

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

What were these errors and misunderstandings?

Haven't heard about this but if true, fair point.



Not all volcanic explosions are equal. Krakatoa was a huge explosion that lowered the temperature of the earth by several degrees for several years. There may have been even larger ones in the past history of the earth.
That said, I can't confirm or refute this claim, I'm no geologist.


No, it is a few years. Another peer reviewed report on this that I just read about a month ago said it lasts about 5 to 15 years in the atmosphere. And the report even noted that while the IPCC says 50 to 200 years, it also says that the IPCC contradicts itself by stating the much lower number.


Well, if we are at peak level, then we've burned about half of all the oil right?


This is true. I've seen several different graphs of CO2 going back millions of years and we are at the lowest levels ever (even though they've move up a bit).


I've posted in this forum a MIT paper from PNAS.org that showed no correlation between CO2 and temperature going back 500 million years. If anything it showed an inverse relationship between Co2 and temperature - When CO2 was high, temps were low and when CO2 was low, temps were high. This same paper shows CO2 levels way higher than they are today and they today's levels are at historic lows.


He's a geologist and geologists tend to more skeptical of AGW than other scientific disciplines. Even realclimate acknowledges this and I believe it has to do with the evidence they find that doesn't jive with what the believers have been saying about past temperatures etc. It's only natural that he get ripped by the believers, his historical data and research doesn't jive with what the IPCC and other believer organizations have said.

Now as far as not giving his sources, that's a fair point (if true, I'll take your word on it). But you should also note that your side has gone out of it's way to block our side from getting data and code. Climateaudit.org for example has been trying to get data from Hadcrut and they have been refusing them for a long time. And IPCC scientists Michael Mann went out of his way to keep his work on the 1st hockey stick graph from being reviewed and when it finally was, it was debunked. On top of this, there were hints of scientific fraud in his work on this graph.

Kramer

__________________
“We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. … The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism.”

TheNation, June 7, 2007

I dispute the whole notion that anthropogenic global warming is even occurring. There's no science behind it. Just faith in computer models with a few loose screws. Junk in, junk out.

Ian Plimer – Heaven and Earth BraveNewClimate.com
The science is missing from Ian Plimer's "Heaven and Earth" : Deltoid
Climate Shifts Blog Archive
Ian Plimer climate book
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-downl....php?fileId=91

The deliberate fraud is here:

1. Plimer uses a graph, without attribution, produced for the Great Global Warming Swindle on Channel 4. The programme altered the timeline, creating the false impression that most of the rise in temperature last century took place before 1940. After an outcry by scientists, subsequent editions of the programme corrected the timeline. But Plimer leaves the graph – and its convenient error – intact.


Spectator recycles climate rubbish published by sceptic | George Monbiot | Environment | guardian.co.uk


Here:

Plimer resorts to attack as the best form of defence | Environment | guardian.co.uk


No. He was flat out wrong:

Here.

Do you believe Ian Plimer? Open Mind



The problem is that it depends on the sinks, which we are undeniably destroying, thereby increasing the residence time.



There is plenty of coal and natural gas still around, not too mention the greatest ecocidal project on the earth, the Tar Sands, the production of which releases 3X as much GHG emissions as conventional oil production.



It does not mean we are 'starved' of CO2. It certainly does not mean we should alter the CO2 cycle. When you go back hundreds of millions of years you are looking at a radically different climate with different forcings at play. Without this discussion all you are doing is misleading people.



Can you post it again?

The ice core data only goes back a few hundred thousand years and there is a clear correlation in that data. In the modern era since actual measurements have been taken there is also a clear correlation.

Going back 500 million years puts us in a different climate altogether with different forcings. Taken out of such a context really only serves to mislead.


He has been ripped directly on specific points of the science in his book, which to this very day he refuses to acknowledge and refuses to backup.

They have not refused. They are compiling all the data for publication on the web so that the entire world can have easy access to it.

BTW, you keep saying the hockey stick was debunked and that is simply a false claim.

Hockey stick was debunked

At the very least all you can claim is that there is a controversy, but its pretty weak because all subsequent graphs plotting the same thing from multiple proxies all show the same general 'hockey stick' pattern.

Regardless, one person's bad science does not in any way justify Plimers deliberate use of fraudulent graphs or his refusal to let us all know where the hell his contrarian science comes from. If it was valid one would assume that he would happily and willingly provide it rather than playing stupid little games. It really just destroys his credibility.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

You clearly don't have any clue what you are talking about. Which is pretty much as i expected.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

Negative, the Earth has a natural equilibrium of temperature that is higher than what it is today. Only through natural disaster has the temperature dropped to what is today. Like I said, we are still in an ice age. Ice ages occur from disaster which temporarily lowers the normal temp.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

If there is a natural equilibrium it would be defined by the life on the planet, and as such, it is about 14 degrees celsius.

But the entire idea of their being a natural absolute temperature on earth is rather nonsensical.

What are you talking about? We are not right now in an ice age.... the period we are in now is an interglacial. The last ice age was the Wisconsin ice age, and it ended about 10 000 years ago.

Some theories indicate we should be entering a new ice age, but that the spread of agriculture, deforestation, and industrial emissions over the course of human civilization has prevented that from happening.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

I'm sorry but it's a scientific fact that we are still in an ice age.

Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a very basic fact. If you don't like my wiki source I'm sure you can find the definition of what and ice age is and figure out that we are still in one. If you overlooked something as simple as this than maybe you've overlooked other interesting facts.

And yes, there is life on the planet now that thrives in this temperature, but what about all the animals that thrived when the Earth was at it's proper temperature that are now extinct?

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw