Dr. Vincent Gray on historical carbon dioxide levels

NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 312 JUNE 4th 2013

CARBON DIOXIDE

There are two gases in the earth’s atmosphere without which living organisms could not exist.

Oxygen is the most abundant, 21% by volume, but without carbon dioxide, which is currently only about 0.04 percent (400ppm) by volume, both the oxygen itself, and most living organisms on earth could not exist at all.

This happened when the more complex of the two living cells (called “eukaryote”) evolved a process called a “chloroplast” some 3 billion years ago, which utilized a chemical called chlorophyll to capture energy from the sun and convert carbon dioxide and nitrogen into a range of chemical compounds and structural polymers by photosynthesis. These substances provide all the food required by the organisms not endowed with a chloroplast organelle in their cells.

This process also produced all of the oxygen in the atmosphere

The relative proportions of carbon dioxide and oxygen have varied very widely over the geological ages.

Oxygen_earths_atmosphere_historical

CO2_temperature_historical

It will be seen that there is no correlation whatsoever between carbon dioxide concentration and the temperature at the earth’s surface.

During the latter part of the Carboniferous, the Permian and the first half of the Triassic period, 250-320 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentration was half what it is today but the temperature was 10ºC higher than today . Oxygen in the atmosphere fluctuated from 15 to 35% during this period

From the Cretaceous to the Eocene 35 to 100 million years ago, a high temperature went with declining carbon dioxide.

The theory that carbon dioxide concentration is related to the temperature of the earth’s surface is therefore wrong.

The growth of plants in the Carboniferous caused a reduction in atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide, forming the basis for large deposits of dead plants and other organisms. Plant debris became the basis for peat and coal., smaller organisms provided oil and gas, both after millions of years of applied heat and pressure from geological change; mountain building, erosion, deposition of sediments, volcanic eruptions, rises and fall of sea level and movement of continents. Marine organisms used carbon dioxide to build shells and coral polyps and these became the basis of limestone rocks

The idea promulgated by the IPCC that the energy received from the sun is instantly “balanced” by an equal amount returned to space, implies a dead world, from the beginning with no place for the vital role of carbon dioxide in forming the present atmosphere or for the development or maintenance of living organisms, or their ability to store energy or release it.

Increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by return to the atmosphere of some of the gas that was once there promotes the growth of forests, the yield of agricultural crops and the fish, molluscs and coral polyps in the ocean.

Increase of Carbon Dioxide is thus wholly beneficial to “the environment” There is no evidence that it causes harm.

Cheers

Vincent Gray

Wellington, New Zealand

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Ken cole

What a great and simple and factual explanation which even the dimmest of our politicians should understand.
However I won’t hold my breath.
kayelsea

Very nice. Very important, too. I wish they taught this is school!

Joseph F, Lais

The interesting context for me is how close we are to the minimum CO2 concentration (~180ppm) to support photosynthesis. So much carbon has been locked up as fossil deposits in limestone, coal, oil, gas, and etc. that we would need a program to release carbon if not for energy generation with carbon based fuels.

Louis

The CO2/temperature graph above doesn’t look much like Al Gore’s graph. Why is that? I thought the science was settled.

milodonharlani

Please excuse quibbling and nit-picking, but a chloroplast is not a process. It’s a structure, an organelle or plastid, within some eukaryotic cells, ie those with nuclei or the ancestors of which contained nuclei & other organelles. (The other type of cell to which the good doctor refers is called prokaryotic, of which there are two kinds, the familiar bacteria & less well-known archaea, which tend to be extremophiles.)
Chloroplasts are thought to have been incorporated into eukaryotic cells via endosymbiosis with cyanobacteria, which had previously “invented” photosynthesis. Cyanobacteria (aka blue-green “algae”, which they aren’t) evolved possibly as long ago as 3.6 billion years. Eukaryotes captured them by 2.7 billion years ago.

I must have misunderstood, but to me the explanation of the function of chloroplast implies that the process generated most or all of atmospheric oxygen? In fact, the article claims “This process also produced all of the oxygen in the atmosphere”.
Obviously, atmospheric elemental oxygen did not start appearing with eukaryotes. Cyanobacteria (which are prokaryotes) had utilized sunlight as a source of energy, to convert CO2 and H2O into useful compounds while liberating O2. Cyanobacteria have existed at least since Paleo-Archean (3500 million years ago), while first eukaryotes appeared in early Proterozoic (possibly as early as 2700 mil. years ago, but probably 2100-1600 mil. years ago).
So what have I missed?

tmitsss

The chart does not seem to support the the statement that CO2 levels were 1/2 current levels 250 million years ago.

Gail Combs

You forgot one very important point Dr. Gray.
CO2 is absolutely vital for the health of humans.

CO2 Heals Lung Damage and Lung Injury
Hyperventilation (routinely found during medical investigations in lung patients) can cause additional lung damage or injury to lung tissue and worsen any chronic condition, including lung cancers (lung tumor), chronic obstructive lung disease, lung fibrosis, lung nodules, lung carcinoma, blood clots in the lung, fibrosis of the lung, fluid in the lung, cystic fibrosis, asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, and many others. However, these pathological changes can be prevented or treated with a supplementary therapy that involves breathing training. Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the lungs can heal lungs and prevent complications due to these conditions. As a result, many patients can avoid lung transplantation so that there is less need for lung transplants….

CO2, Blood pH and Respiratory Alkalosis: Causes and Effects
Blood pH is tightly regulated by a system of buffers that continuously maintain it in a normal range of 7.35 to 7.45 (slightly alkaline). Blood pH drop below 7 can lead to a coma and even death due to severe acidosis. This causes depression of the central nervous system. High blood pH (above 7.45) is called alkalosis. Severe alkalosis (when blood pH is more than 8) can also lead to death, as it often happens during last days or hours of life in most people who are chronically and terminally ill.
Hyperventilation is the most common cause of respiratory alkalosis. Note that overbreathing is exceptionally common in people with chronic diseases (for clinical studies, see the Homepage of this site).
The main mechanisms for blood pH maintenance and control
– Carbonic Acid-Bicarbonate Buffer System
– Protein Buffer System
– Phosphate Buffer System
– Elimination of Hydrogen Ions via Kidneys
Carbon dioxide plays one of the central roles in respiratory alkalosis. Note, however, that tissue hypoxia due to critically-low carbon dioxide level in the alveoli is usually the main life-threatening factor in the severely sick. As we discussed before, CO2 is crucial for vasodilation and the Bohr effect…..

So CO2 is not only NOT a pollutant, it is vital to human health and well-being.

tmitsss

Malthusian thought would suggest that plants could consume most of the CO2 in the atmosphere unless something else restricted their growth.

Ian W

“The idea promulgated by the IPCC that the energy received from the sun is instantly “balanced” by an equal amount returned to space, implies a dead world, from the beginning with no place for the vital role of carbon dioxide in forming the present atmosphere or for the development or maintenance of living organisms, or their ability to store energy or release it.
Could this energy being used to build plant material be Trenberth’s missing heat? Trenberth’s diagrams all assume that the heat energy either creates a rise in temperature or is radiated out to space. He has missed the locking up of energy by photosynthesis. How much energy is needed to build a tree or a blade of grass – or a forest? The more plant-life the more energy is used. Animals then use that energy to form their own bodies and we can see vast limestone and chalk deposits all required chemical energy to build as the shells of formanifera – energy which is now locked up as calcium carbonate deposits.
The Earth energy budget equation is missing a term. Life

Percentage of CO2 and O2 in the atmosphere is not enough information if the sea-level atmospheric pressure also changes over time. So Partial Pressure of CO2 might be the key component.
Some of this was discussed in “So Dinasaus Could Fly, Part I”. The size of flying dinosaurs is evidence of a thicker, more dense, atmosphere in the Mesozoic. The Power to stay aloft is inversely proportional to sqrt(air density).

I conclude that [if the Power of an animal is proportioinal to Weight^(x), then max weight of a flying organism is proportional to AirDensity^(1/(3-2x))
If x = 1, then Max weight is proportion to air density.
If x = 0.8, then Max weight is proportional to AirDensity^(0.71)

Ian W has it right. I have looked and not found, what percent of sunlight is used by photosynthesis.
true, it will be recycled in time, but not on small timescales. be nice to know, as this is a negative
feedback. the hottest places on earth are the deserts, no vegetation.

DirkH

tmitsss says:
June 4, 2013 at 11:24 am
“Malthusian thought would suggest that plants could consume most of the CO2 in the atmosphere unless something else restricted their growth.”
That is not Malthusian thought but Liebig’s Law.
C3 plants stop photosynthesizing below 150 ppm CO2. C4 plants (grases) are generally less efficient but have the advantage of being able to photosynthesize down to 0 ppm CO2.
Corn is for instance a C4 plant and will remove all CO2 from the surrounding air given enough sunshine, water and nutrients.

milodonharlani

@Mišo Alkalaj says:
June 4, 2013 at 11:16 am
———————————–
Very small amounts of oxygen were generated abiotically in the primordial atmosphere by the breakdown of water vapor, but it was taken up by geologic features such as the iron-rich red beds, ie by rusting & other chemical processes, so it couldn’t build up in the air. So it might not be precisely correct to say “all” O2 is of biological origin, but effectively, this is true.

Gene Selkov

Mišo Alkalaj:
I was going to make a similar comment about chloroplasts, but now I recall that when Dr. Gray was young (and even when I was young), we were taught that cells called “eukaryote” evolved a process called a “chloroplast”, just like they evolved a nucleus and other compartmentalised processes. Back then, we knew nothing about Archaea, and only the very few of us suspected that mitochondria were symbiotically acquired.
The last 20-30 years’ update: now we know for sure that mitochondria are bacterial endosymbionts, and we also know that about chloroplasts. They are cyanobacteria:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC153454/
The origins of eukaryotes themselves are not known. One theory has it that various bits acquired by a prokaryotic cell from its endosymbionts fell together to form a nucleus. But it is just a theory, like many others.
What seems to be certain is that the atmospheric oxygen was evolved from a great variety of living cells’ photosystems, eubacterial and eukaryotic. Oxygen is too reactive to remain in the atmosphere without a constant evolution from photosynthesis.

milodonharlani

@ RICHARD CLENNEY says:
June 4, 2013 at 12:04 pm
About 45% of the sunlight spectrum is used for photosynthesis, which of course is a separate issue from the energetic efficiency of the process.

RobertInAz

Hmm. Has anybody looked at whether any of the missing heat is locked up in biomass?

xham

Curious: How did herbivores survive in Triassic period if co2 levels were half what they are today…isn’t 180ppm a cut off point for successful plant development?

James at 48

Where the draw down in CO2 is leading is probably a reprise of the P/T “boundary” (e.g. extinction event). That will liberate enough CO2 as a byproduct of decay, to milk a little more life out of the biosphere. However, it is clearly trending toward the ultimate death. The death of all life on Earth.

Shepherdfj

Well, as far as I can see from the second chart, 40-45 million years ago during the Eocene Epoch, the global temperature was approximately 23 C, as compared to the current of 14 C. That is 9 degrees C higher, and yet the oceans did not boil away which apparently is the nightmare Jim Hansen has. We have a long, long way to go before reaching such a warmer temperature state.

Shepherdfj

Another observation from the second chart, apparently for the past 600 million years of earth’s geological history, CO2 concentrations have been considerably higher than our current atmospheric levels for about 95% of the time. So what is all the fuss about, really? Did Dyno the Tyrono drive an SUV?

Dr. Bob

Excellent discussion, but one critically important point. The chart is essentially impossible to discern by those of us with genetic defects that leave us color insensitive. I have red/green color insensitivity, essentially my Red and Green receptor chromophores are too close together and I cannot distinguish 40 of the 46 color test patterns. So, pleas be aware of this when preparing charts that only use color to define the legend. Thanks from the genetically impaired.

Rud Istvan

For those above. Only about 45% of sunlight wavelengths are photosyntheticly active radiation (PAR). For a variety of reasons detailed in the world biofuels chapter of my first book, the actual net average efficiency is about 1% in the tropics. (there is a wide range depending on C3 or C4 pathway, etc). So less in temperate zones, most which are in northern latitudes, whichnis why the Keeling curve has annual seasonality with CO2 peaking in spring, just before the seasonal biological sequestration ( plant food) begins. That seasonality allows a calculation of the percentage of annual emissions being sequestered through photosynthesis.
This seems to be a day with a lot of suspect posts. The conditions of the Earth and it’s biosphere in the Carboniferous or the Permian are NOT good indicators of conditions or how they might change in the Holocene or the ‘anthropocene’. Different biome, with continents in different positions. That is at best a very weak argument against AGW. To my mind it weakens rather than strengthens the overall sceptical case. Ditto the posting on glaciers, which even if true confused them with stable ice sheets, and completely got wrong the Greenland Ice cores. Ditto the posting on temp and CO2, which took the obvious fact of Henry’s law and Gore got the sequence wrong to assert no anthropogenic CO2 last 100 years. The rate of exchange is several centuries depending on who read which ice core. So the Keeling curve represents anthropogenic CO2 from burning fossil fuels, after some additional dissolving in seawater ( proven by ‘acidification’) and some additional biological sequestration ( e.g. the recent desert greening post).
Accepting ‘bad arguments’ against AGW is not much better than those who accept bad arguments for AGW. WUWT should be about finding and strengthening good arguments.

Myrrh

Further to Gail’s post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/#comment-1326044
More on carbon dioxide the basic foodstuff of carbon life – http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/11Phl/Sci/CO2&Health.html
We are Carbon Life Forms.
The idea that a trace real gas drives global temperatures is absurd, even if we didn’t have extensive research through ice cores, stomata to show how it lagged temperature, always an effect, never the cause, that carbon dioxide is claimed to be a “thermal blanket trapping heat” when it is practically 100% hole in atmosphere shows clearly that all the arguments about “degree of sensitivity” have lost touch with reality. But that was the object of exercise, to produce a fake fisics changing all the properties and processess in order to push the AGW narrative and to that end the argument between CAGWs and AGWs created, the protagonists on both sides so caught up in it that neither side wants to be reminded that there have never been shown any empirical science for the claims about carbon dioxide; both sides dismiss any mention of this with a general handwaving in the direction of the past garbling reposts that ‘there are countless experiments to prove it’, but never producing any. And neither side notices there is no rain in their CAGW/AGW carbon cycle.
Shrug, why should they? They haven’t even noticed their energy budget is missing the whole of the Water Cycle.

Volcanic eruptions expel large volumes of CO2, from the Earth’s interior.
Expert opinion appreciated on the following two points:
Does CO2 signature identify its origin either as of interior chemical reactions or less likely organic from subduction process ?
Are the volumes of ejected lava and CO2 related?
Thanks.
p.s. if you are in the UK, BBC4 on Voyager space probes now on.

Ian W

Rud Istvan says:
June 4, 2013 at 12:59 pm
For those above. Only about 45% of sunlight wavelengths are photosyntheticly active radiation (PAR). For a variety of reasons detailed in the world biofuels chapter of my first book, the actual net average efficiency is about 1% in the tropics. (there is a wide range depending on C3 or C4 pathway, etc). So less in temperate zones, most which are in northern latitudes, whichnis why the Keeling curve has annual seasonality with CO2 peaking in spring, just before the seasonal biological sequestration ( plant food) begins. That seasonality allows a calculation of the percentage of annual emissions being sequestered through photosynthesis.
This seems to be a day with a lot of suspect posts. The conditions of the Earth and it’s biosphere in the Carboniferous or the Permian are NOT good indicators of conditions or how they might change in the Holocene or the ‘anthropocene’. Different biome, with continents in different positions. That is at best a very weak argument against AGW.

Interesting input – perhaps you can describe how continental drift alters CO2 infrared absorption in the atmosphere and the hypothesized water vapor feedback?

Mišo Alkalaj says:
June 4, 2013 at 11:16 am

I must have misunderstood, but to me the explanation of the function of chloroplast implies that the process generated most or all of atmospheric oxygen? In fact, the article claims “This process also produced all of the oxygen in the atmosphere”.

I may be getting lost in the proper terminology myself, but I would have said “Photosythesis is the process that produced essentially all the oxygen in the atmosphere.” (I’m a software engineer – it’s hard to get me to use absolutes!)
However, there are also processes like http://www.thefreedictionary.com/process which says “6. Biology: An outgrowth of tissue; a projecting part: a bony process.” I much prefer organelle.
I’d be reluctant to call these endosymbionts any longer. (I hadn’t heard that word before, but I sort of like it.) I read somewhere that humans have more DNA for controlling mitochondria than there is DNA in mitochondria. They really have become part of us!

Donald Mitchell

While I am somewhat embarrassed that I had never considered the energy locked up in biomass, so I googled “heat of combustion cellulose”.
Update for Combustion Properties of Wood Components
and
Wood Combustion Basics (PDF)
were the first two results. The second one, presented at an EPA workshop points out that the heat of combustion will be equal to the energy stored from the light and indicates about 20,000 to 21,000 joules per kg of dry wood. The first goes into much more detail. but lists biomass as about 20,000 joules per kg. If we consider how much biomass would correspond to 1 w per sq meter, we get 1 j/sec *3600 sec/hr * 24 hr/day * 365 day /year = 31,536,000 j/year. dividing by 20,000 j/kg, we get about 1577 kg/year. With 5.1*10^14 sq meters of surface this would be roughly 8*10^17 kg or 8*10^14 tons per year. Wikipedia estimates 1.46*10^11 tons/ year on their biomass page.
Unless I have really botched it by a few decimal places, biomass does not look like it can account for much of the energy. When I got to the 1577 kg/yr per sq meter, I knew that I was not talking about even close to what my yard produces.

Myrrh

vukcevic says:
June 4, 2013 at 1:04 pm
Volcanic eruptions expel large volumes of CO2, from the Earth’s interior.
Expert opinion appreciated on the following two points:
Does CO2 signature identify its origin either as of interior chemical reactions or less likely organic from subduction process ?
Are the volumes of ejected lava and CO2 related?
Thanks.

As with everything else in the AGW narrative, this aspect too has been butchered to present the narrative in sound bite memes overriding the facts, some from Timothy Casey:
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
“Based on this brief literature survey, we may conclude that volcanic CO2 emissions are much higher than previously estimated, and as volcanic CO2 contributions are effectively indistinguishable from industrial CO2 contributions, we cannot glibly assume that the increase of atmospheric CO2 is exclusively anthropogenic.”
And some examples of the skullduggery as with temperature manipulations:
“2.0 Calculated Estimates: Glorified Guesswork
The estimation of worldwide volcanic CO2 emission is undermined by a severe shortage of data. To make matters worse, the reported output of any individual volcano is itself an estimate based on limited rather than complete measurement. One may reasonably assume that in each case, such estimates are based on a representative and statistically significant quantity of empirical measurements. Then we read statements, such as this one courtesy of the USGS (2010):

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.

“In point of fact, the total worldwide estimate of roughly 55 MtCpa is by one researcher, rather than “scientists” in general. More importantly, this estimate by Gerlach (1991) is based on emission measurements taken from only seven subaerial volcanoes and three hydrothermal vent sites. Yet the USGS glibly claims that Gerlach’s estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes in roughly equal amounts. Given the more than 3 million volcanoes worldwide indicated by the work of Hillier & Watts (2007), one might be prone to wonder about the statistical significance of Gerlach’s seven subaerial volcanoes and three hydrothermal vent sites. If the statement of the USGS concerning volcanic CO2 is any indication of the reliability of expert consensus, it would seem that verifiable facts are eminently more trustworthy than professional opinion.”
So much for their much vaunted “pristine sites for measuring” their mythical “well mixed background man made”, which are surrounded in huge volcanic production which somehow magically they can tell apart from man-made..

@Ian W at 11:25 am
How much energy is needed to build a tree or a blade of grass – or a forest? The more plant-life the more energy is used.
This is a MAJOR point!
CO2’s spurring of plant growth (and the energy plants absorb) is a negative feedback, or a direct negative effect on temperatures.
Despite no demonstrated connection between CO2 & climate temperatures, the warmists maintain that CO2 directly causes temperature changes, and that a positive feedback of water vapor then triples the alleged effect. Right, is my response. Water vapor is probably a negative feedback. Now we add that plant growth will absorb heat. For all we know, the net effect of an increase in CO2 would decrease temperature. Yes, and that’s consistent with the evidence, and that evidence is that there is no causal correlation between CO2 & temperatures!! None. See and share this short video that beautifully makes this point obvious and calls out Al Gore for his disingenuous bullshit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag

Arno Arrak

Interesting history, bears repeating. Daniel Rothman (PNAS, April 2, 2002) also surveyed the behavior of carbon dioxide for the last 500 million years and concluded that “The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales.” Nicely obfuscated for activists who don’t know what a tectonic time scale is.

Ian W says:
June 4, 2013 at 11:25 am
“The idea promulgated by the IPCC that the energy received from the sun is instantly “balanced” by an equal amount returned to space, implies a dead world, from the beginning with no place for the vital role of carbon dioxide in forming the present atmosphere or for the development or maintenance of living organisms, or their ability to store energy or release it.
Could this energy being used to build plant material be Trenberth’s missing heat? Trenberth’s diagrams all assume that the heat energy either creates a rise in temperature or is radiated out to space. He has missed the locking up of energy by photosynthesis. How much energy is needed to build a tree or a blade of grass – or a forest? The more plant-life the more energy is used. Animals then use that energy to form their own bodies and we can see vast limestone and chalk deposits all required chemical energy to build as the shells of formanifera – energy which is now locked up as calcium carbonate deposits.
The Earth energy budget equation is missing a term. Life
I posted several comments about this some time ago. Though the available numbers are somewhat variable the middle estimate I found for daily caloric intake per capita globally was
about 2800 Calories. Last time I looked the human population was estimated at about 7.1 billion
which gives about 2×10*13 calories per day. Dietary calories are actually kilocalories which convert to Joules by multiplying by 4184 giving 8×10*16 joules per day. Estimates of spoilage and waste in the global food supply range from 30 to 50 percent so figure something north of 10*17 joules per day or about 4×10*19 joules per year. Not in itself a really significant number, but in terms of biological throughput humans are a relative drop in the bucket. I haven’t been able to find even an estimate of what that fraction is, but if it is a hunderdth or as I suspect even a thousandth of total biochemical energy converted from solar insolation by life on the planet, which is mostly if not entirely removed from the Earth’s radiative energy budget, the numbers start to look not quite so negligible.
Besides life there is another significant neglected factor I see as causing problems for the notion that solar input and radiative output must balance. The earth’s atmosphere and oceans, and almost everything else for that matter, are in constant motion which requires massive amounts of kinetic energy. That energy comes from many sources, gravity, the Coriolis effect, etc., but some portion, and I suspect a not insignificant portion, comes from the conversion of incoming solar radiative energy to kinetic energy, which again removes it from the radiative energy balance.
There may be other such factors that I haven’t recognized, but these two by themselves suggest to me that if the TOA energy was actually in balance it could only happen if the Earth was cooling.

Gene Kelly(not the dancer)

The science debate is very interesting to people who really care about science. Do you really believe that the ‘Goreites” succumb to their own drivel. It has nothing to do about saving the earth,it is about power and rule.

Adrian

I am a geologist and I could not agree more with the point of this article. I have at least 2-5 more examples of published papers in reputable peer reviwed geological magazines, dealing with smaller scale time series (i.e., Miocene time – from about 23 million to aout 5 million years ago, etc) where there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature. If you choose the right scale, the right sampling, and what not, you can come up with some correlation (mathematical correlation that is) for that particular time interval regardless of what your variables are. Yes, I understand that in geologic time, there are processes that no longer act like the they did in the past. Yes, I understand, the configuration of the continents, ocean currents, mountain belts, and a whole slew of other factors that will affect our weather (and thus it 30-years smoothing curve climate) have changed through time, but that is not the point. The point is that AGW croud singles out the CO2 as the drivers of feaver our planet is supposed to have. But, the one thing that graph drives home and can’t be argued with: CO2 and T on that graph are from proxies (and some error bars would be in order), and there is no correlation beteen CO2 and T.
Cheers,
Adrian

iknowthetruth

“without carbon dioxide, which is currently only about 0.04 percent (400ppm) by volume, both the oxygen itself, and most living organisms on earth could not exist at all.”
Nonsense. It’s just a trace gas and can’t have any significant effects on anything.

Myrrh says:
June 4, 2013 at 1:30 pm
…………….
Thanks Myrrh.

Let’s change the entire discussion around carbon to a “Carbon Positive Campaign”!

RICHARD CLENNEY says on June 4, 2013 at 12:04 pm:
“- – – – – – – – -. the hottest places on earth are the deserts, no vegetation.”
= = = = = = = = = = =
What about Antarctica? That’s one big desert – as far as I can see

Bart

FTA: “The theory that carbon dioxide concentration is related to the temperature of the earth’s surface is therefore wrong.”
Correction: The statement that carbon dioxide concentration is directly related to the temperature of the earth’s surface is therefore wrong. The rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere is, however, directly related to temperature.
Natural systems generally evolve according to differential relations, not to memoryless, instantaneous input/output relations. It is calculus, not algebra.

The growth of plants in the Carboniferous caused a reduction in atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide,
Should not that be “an increase in oxygen”?

willhaas

There is no evidence that CO2 levels effect climate, either long term as dealt with in this paper, medium term, like over the Holocene, or short term, like over the last 150 years. The so called greenhouse effect is dominated by water vapor. There is theory and evidence that any possible effects of added CO2 is negated by negative H2O feedbacks for example clouds in the lower atmosphere. If CO2 has any effect at all then it acts as a radiative thermal insulator. As such added CO2 will cause increases in temperature in the lower troposphere but decreases in temperature in the upper troposphere where SWIR is radiated out to space. If temperatures drop so does H2O content which negates the effect of added CO2. I do not think that this constitutes a smoking gun against AGW but it constitutes a substantial theoretical and evidential basis against the idea of AGW. I have been looking for but have not found a smoking gun basis for AGW. Some claim that solar forcing alone does not account for the warming that we have been observing over the past 100 years. But if one just turns up the solar activity climate warming gain by assuming a relationship between solar activity and albedo then CO2 based warming is not required to account what we have been observing.

Gary Pearse

So there is a ceiling and floor to temps ~2-3C below the present temp and 7-8C above the present temp and it likes to periodically go up and down to these temps. This should be considered the starting point for investigation of climate – we definitely have to start all over again (what to do with the unbelievable 100,000+ papers on the subject – nearly all based on Willis’s discovery of the simple black box equation that charts a course to nowhere?).
One thing I would like to point out about this CO2 – temp thing, though, we would have started off with a hot earth, very high CO2, water vapor, etc in the earliest atmosphere and condensation of the water into oceans with CO2 dissolving in the oceans as things cooled and this leading to removal of some CO2 in the form of precipitated limestones; this followed by the beginnings and development of life, biological absorption of CO2, splitting off and release of oxygen, etc. and finally bringing CO2 gas down to near present levels about 200 million years ago – the process taking a few billion years. This might be considered a new, longer term equilibrium in which CO2 morphed into gas plus life forms (both live and sequestered dead) plus inorganically and biochemically precipitated calcium carbonate. The new equilibrium, if the max and min temp levels established since the proto-earth cooled hold up, is dealing with a fraction of the earlier available CO2. Anything prior to 200 million years ago is now largely out of the equation. (I think it started out as a more beautiful thought than this).

Rigel

help me ! http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/waste-recycling-environment/sustainability/eco-eastleigh.aspx
If any of you have a similar attitude towards ‘climate change’ as I do you will want to help me put this perspective over at this event.
I have asked one question for the event already and would love it if some of you could email one of the questions below to giles.gooding@eastleigh.gov.uk and then come along perhaps to watch them squirm.
1. Fleming Park leisure centre was fitted with Solar panels a few years ago, it takes at least 10 years for these to make any real savings, now with the leisure centre possibly being knocked down — what is to happen to them, was climate change tackled and was it worth it ?
2. ‘Tackling Climate Change’ is the public relations mantra of EBC, have the revelations of ‘Climategate’ where the world’s top experts have been caught fiddling the data, picking only sympathetic collegues to peer review their work, and repeatedly denying other researchers their raw data to hide their biased interpretations at all changed the councils position.
3.The BBC recently announced they would give no airtime to alternative views on ‘climate change’ as it is ‘settled science’ are ‘settled science’ other words for religion ?
4.At a recent LAC planning meeting a councillor said there was a cataclysmic shortage of housing and the committee voted in favour of a massive housing development of hundreds of detached houses on a ‘greenfield’ site, at the same meeting the Councillors laughed at plans for a high rise. Is building thousands more detached and semi-detached houses across the borough sustainable?
5. A housing developer recently told me that the council’s own sustainability criteria (code level 4) made development of brownfield sites uneconomic so firms are now only interested in greenfield sites, however energy efficient the houses are, isn’t the net impact an increase in emissions?
6 You have been ‘Tackling Climate Change’ for some time, has the CO2 output of the borough gone down, and can you prove that?
7. With 500 new houses built every year there is an increasing requirement for water and sewerage, has the capacity of our water system been correspondingly improved by larger or more reservoirs or sewers in the last 25 years ? And if not, are the saving water campaigns just a way of keeping an old system going and money rolling in for what are now private companies?
8. What new discovery could instantly disprove anthropogenic global warming, and if it is not falsifiable, how can we be sure it is right — remember if the earth is getting warmer wouldn’t the great ball of fire in the sky be a good place to start?
.

“You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling C02′” -Reid Bryson, the ‘Father of Climatology’

Myrrh says on June 4, 2013 at 1:30 pm:
“As with everything else in the AGW narrative, this aspect too has been butchered to present the narrative in sound bite memes overriding the facts, some from Timothy Casey:
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/”
= = = = = = =
Thanks Myrrh, once upon a long time ago, I taught myself a bit of French in order to be able to read the writings of Fourier – That’s the guy who is supposed to be the “Father of the ‘Greenhouse theory”. – I managed to do it – after a fashion – and of course it became obvious to me that that according to Fourier – IR or the dark radiation from the ground/surface could not possibly have anything at all to do with rising or lowering the temperature of this planet.
And then along comes Timothy Casey – a guy who has found all, or most of the translations and writings of the deep thinkers and experimenters from the 19th Century. – Clever guy this Timothy Casey fellow and I wish all the good people who write and contribute here on WUWT would set aside some time to read all his writings – or at least some of it – Once again, yesterday in fact, I performed a simple little experiment that proves that IR radiation cannot penetrate solid, transparent glass and Fourier’s further claim that nor can it penetrate H2O or water is painfully evident in nature. So evident is it – in fact – that no additional experiments should be necessary.

geran

It remains amazing that the warmers and lukers are still hung up on CO2. The “magic gas” that can heat the planet. I suspect they will support it forever–CO2, that toxic gas!
The last 15 years of temps must be cloaked in a shield they cannot see….

gareth

3rd para: “convert carbon dioxide and nitrogen into a range of chemical compounds and structural polymers by photosynthesis”
Is that correct ??? Should it read CO2 & H2O ?

polistra

We haven’t even answered the most basic question: is the present increase in the atmosphere coming FROM the ocean or coming FROM human and animal activities on land? The pattern, on the current cycle just like the past cycles, would suggest that it’s mainly outgassing from the ocean in response to a warming ocean.

Gary Hladik

Rud Istvan says (June 4, 2013 at 12:59 pm): “This seems to be a day with a lot of suspect posts. The conditions of the Earth and it’s biosphere in the Carboniferous or the Permian are NOT good indicators of conditions or how they might change in the Holocene or the ‘anthropocene’. Different biome, with continents in different positions. That is at best a very weak argument against AGW.”
I think the message of the chart (assuming it’s largely correct) is that over a variety of geological, atmospheric, and biological conditions, all with temperatures higher than today’s, the Earth never slipped into a catastrophic warming phase. That raises the question of what’s unprecedented about today’s conditions that will produce a result unprecedented in 3 billion years, and why.
To put it another way, the Earth has already performed a number of experiments for us–uncontrolled, to be sure–with higher temperatures than today, yet has not demonstrated the result the IPCC fears. Why would the current experiment, duration less than two centuries, produce a new outcome?
Has the IPCC answered that question?

argitburns

I’m having a hard time believing the oxygen content reconstruction. At much above the current level, wouldn’t the oxygen be oxidizing everything it could get its hands on, whether by combustion or not?