Vitezslav
Why don’t you just stop this stupidity?
I think I have read many comments where people have “taught” you enough about CO2
You not only ignore that, you make these absolutely horrendous entries.
i would suggest, you go back to school.

Jack, and why do you ignore, what we have learnt from history. Historia magistra vitae. It has taught us that life on Earth is perfectly compatible with elevated CO2 levels.

So - to quote you - “Why don’t you just stop this alarmist stupidity?”

Warmer Than a Hot Tub: Atlantic Ocean Temperatures Much Higher in the Past
ocean temperatures in the region ranged between 91° and 107°F (33° and 42°C) between 84 million and 100 million years ago in an era when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Temperatures range between 75° and 82°F (24° and 28°C) in the same region now [...] the group also estimated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the same time span. They were 1,300 to 2,300 parts per million (ppm), compared with 380 ppm today. [...] “One of the most important impacts this evidence suggests is the change to the Earth’ hydrologic cycle,” Bice said. “Higher tropical temperatures will increase the intensity of hurricanes and winter storms.

Climate Model Links Higher Temperatures to Prehistoric Extinction
cientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) have created a computer simulation showing Earth’s climate in unprecedented detail at the time of the greatest mass extinction in the planet’s history. The work gives support to a theory that an abrupt and dramatic rise in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide triggered the massive die-off 251 million years ago. [...] “The results demonstrate how rapidly rising temperatures in the atmosphere can affect ocean circulation, cutting off oxygen to lower depths and extinguishing most life,” says NCAR scientist Jeffrey Kiehl [...] an estimated 90 to 95% of all marine species, as well as about 70% of all terrestrial species, became extinct. At the time of the event, higher-latitude temperatures were 18 to 54 degrees Fahrenheit (10 to 30 degrees Celsius) higher than today

Fossil record supports evidence of impending mass extinction
The research team has, for the first time, discovered a close association between Earth climate and extinctions in a study that has examined the relationship over the past 520 million years [...] evidence shows that global biodiversity is relatively low during warm ‘greenhouse’ phases and extinctions relatively high, while the reverse is true in cooler ‘icehouse’ phases.

Not only does life adapt, but mass extinctions are crucial for long-term evolutionary change. Imagine if the P-Tr event hadn’t occurred. We’d all still be Trilobites! So this sounds like a great idea. Let’s pull that methane trigger.

Well, well. And what caused CO2 incraeses in the preindustrial periods? Why are the fluctioations so periodic? THINK about it.

1) Mass extinctions are known to be caused by astronomic events. This is why they have regular cyclicity.

(The best-known hypothesis of extinction events by a cyclic process is the 26M to 30M year cycle in extinctions proposed by Raup and Sepkoski (1986))

2) CO2 levels rise only after the events (see quaternary ice cores). So they hardly can be the trigger. Post hoc propter hoc.

(Let me speculate randomly. If a meteorite kills animals, who recovers first? The plant life. which breathes out CO2. With nobody to consume it.)

And also: Do you really believe, that Homo Sapiens cannot adapt to higher or lower temperatures?

We already have. Our species adapted to as diverse living conditions as Africa (40°C temperatures) and Arctic (-40°C). Plus - dinosaurs did not have fridges, canned food and fire. THINK about it, before you begin to threatten us with extinction

You should be familiar with the fact that the ice cores (which indeed show a close correllation but in which CO2 only acts as a positive feedback rather than a cause) go back around 800,000 years. So they don’t necessarily say something about events on the scale of tens of millions of years.

The P-Tr event is associated with heightened vulcanic activity (which caused the CO2 increase). Whether this was in turn triggered by cosmic events or endogenously is anyone’s guess.

If you think plants ‘breathe out’ CO2 you should brush up on your biology. I would also suggest that you learn a bit about thermodynamics.

Forget about the “random speculation”. It was rather too random. Plants do not breathe out CO2… Anyway if temperatures rise, oceans emit CO2, that builds up in the atmosphere. It could work like that?

I really doubt that a feedback of a trace gas could prolong warming by e.g. 50 000 years after the trigger (cause) stopped. Sorry, I do not buy that.

Speaking of thermodynamics, Perpetuum Mobile is an impossibility.

It will not lead to the destruction of mankind - we will just mutate just like that green thing on the image ))))

Liguria,
1) We surely will mutate sooner or later. 2 millions years ago we looked different. 2 milions later in future we will look different again.

2) As I said, we have fire, suntan-lotion, fridges, canned food, genetic egineering and other cool gadgets. We are able to adapt.

Vitezslav Kremlik ,

You got a master degree in ARTS and it shows. You don’t understand what you’re talking about.

Diferent animals have different biology, and most of past CO2 concentration in geological terms are projections, assumptions, speculations.

The only precise measure we got about gas concentration is the ice core they got recently, and it only goes 800,000 years in the past

The other measures are punctual measures and extrapolation from punctual finds, so not verry reliable, it could measure the CO2 arround a volcano !... mmm… useless

I can confirm one thing thought, 4 billion years ago there was a lot of CO2.

And also every time we got MASS EXTINCTION there was massive CO2 concentration.

But now, CO2 is not the only factor, methane is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas. And thanks to mc Donald cilinary practice, the endless fields of cows where they cut the amazon forest take care of methane production

Now, if you look through the era where CO2 was SPECULATED to be high, you’ll notice animals were INSECTS, DINOSAURS, FISHES and other “weirdos”... meaning they don’t quite have the same sort of methabolism

Now if you want to get a bee pregnant and have bee-human kids, go ahead, more women for the rest of us

And last not least, CO2 emisions are rising exponentialy, I think even with a master of ARTS, you must have done enought maths in high school to understand the concept of “exponentiality”. If not it’s urgent you go back to school

short course (^ is exponatiantion operator)

2^2 = 4
3^3 = 9
4^4 = 16
5^5 = 25

the exponential curve I mention only appeared since the industrial age, and it’s not slowing down. The highest prehistorical concentration is 20x, as you can see from my chart, it’s reached verry fast

As for human adaptability, it’s more a curse than a gift. Let’s see if dinausors got extinct throught too much methane production (digestion does that) they would have suffocated and things would return to normal.

But as human we’re creative, so the last humans to survive would live in bunkers while CO2 and methane concentration would keep rising artificialy to fuel their endless needs for gadgetry (energy consumption is rising exponentialy by the way, which is what’s causing the whole trend)

As a result, all other life will be extinct long before the last human does. by then we’ll have reverted to canibalism (being the only thing alive, unless you plan to mate with your dog) and other despicable practices.

In the end we should manage to get earth to about the same conditions as Venus, with a little perseverance in denial

<<If you think plants ‘breathe out’ CO2 you should brush up on your biology. >>

He’s an art student, give him a break, he doesn’t know the first thing about biology
try to use words he can understand like how much $$$ the oil industry gave him to fund his site.

<<CLIMATEGATE>>

that case was closed a long time ago. the data was not tempered. and the sceptics lost face. there are under 10% (probably under 5%) of the scientists still in the sceptic camp after that. Those left are all in the employ of the big oil industry, and are making less and less sense, with theories so ridiculous they ought to be published in the national enquirer

I think you should brush up on recent events, even all russian scientists are now convinced of the climate change

I’m not too surprised of that change after what happened. The common cause was found for the russian fires and pakistani floods… no less than a static jet stream (jet stream usually travel at verry high speed and control the weather system)

Anyway, not too sure you can understand meteorology, or even history (which is supposed to be your field)

Dear Vitezslav,
I am investigating this field and am largely in agreement with want you are saying.
If we examine the last 700,000 years we see cycles of widespread glaciation occuring every 80-110,000 years, which I have read as being due to fluctuations in the earth’s solar orbit.  These times have also had lower concentrations of CO2.  The glacial periods have also meant that a great degree of the landsurface of the planet becomes largely uninhabitable, as covered by glacier, and permafrost.  There are forecasts that predict the next glacial cycle as being in 20,000 years time.  I think it highly likely that this glacial cycle has been stopped by the release of trapped CO2, so yes it could indeed be a positive action.  CO2 is not a pollutant.  Do we call cars weapons of mass destruction? No, but how many lives are caused in road accidents each year?  They are not WoMDs as such because they are only dangerous when used incorrectly.
I think that recently we have certainly used the planet incorrectly, and continued deforestation (as also typified by early european development) inappropriate farming techniques, both on land and in the sea are the main causes of environmental and climatic change.  Unrestrained business activities and constant warfare are also major factors.
Luckily with scientific research, however sporadic, we can look to the future with hindsight and act now to ameliorate the situation that we are in.  We need to evaluate how to use climatic change to the advantage of the planet, or see how to lessen negative impacts at local levels.  We should not look to business or government for solutions, but act for ourselves.  If we believe that methane emissions are a problem, stop paying the producers.  If we think that farming could be done better buy organic or biodynamic, or from local farmers, hey grow as much as you can yourself.
All the best, Jonathan