[CliffordK (OP)]

For quite some time we've been getting close to 400ppm atmospheric concentration of CO₂. 

They said on the Radio that it has finally hit that level.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=MLO&program=ccgg&type=ts
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

I've been missing fine detail long-term CO₂ estimates over the past few million years.  They suggested this level had occurred about 2 million years ago. 

If we truly were at these levels 2 million years ago, it would have occurred around the time we were plunging into our current glacial/interglacial cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record


So, what does this all mean to humanity?

[MoreCarbonOK]

Clifford,
are you a chemisdt?
Any (good) chemist knows that there are giga tons and giga tons of bi-carbonates dissolved in the oceans and that (any type of) warming would cause it to be released:

HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-.

This is the actual reason we are alive today. Cause and effect, get it? There is a causal relationship. More warming naturally causes more CO2. Without warmth and carbon dioxide there would be nothing, really. To make that what we dearly want, i.e. more crops, more trees, lawns and animals and people, nature uses water and carbon dioxide and warmth, mostly.

Wake up out of your dream worlds. More CO2 is better. I hope you at least agree with me on that.

[Bored chemist]

"More CO2 is better. I hope you at least agree with me on that."
No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity

[MoreCarbonOK]

henry@bored chemist
they did tests in 1970 with rats
they upped the mixture to 60% CO2
but still had 20% oxygen
the rats would not die
(I have no pity on those rats)
Roempps
check it yourself/ @ Roempps
CO2 is not a poison
the fact that you live actually proves it

[MoreCarbonOK]

Note we are only talking about 0.04%
not 60%
as mentioned in the previous comment

[MoreCarbonOK]

btw
the 400 ppm (parts per million) level has NOT been reached
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/13/premature-400-ppm-fail-a-bration/

[Mazurka]

There is no particular "meaning" to the 400ppm level other than as human beings we tend to like nice round numbers - hence the pseudo "science" of numerology. 400 ppm does not represent a “tipping point” or some other sort of point of no return, it is merely a symbolic milestone.

It is entirely true to say that life as we know it would not exist without the CO₂ and the greenhouse effect.  However, it is facile(*) to suggest that more carbon in the atmosphere is unequivocally a good thing.  Changing weather and climate patterns are more likely to result in poor harvests rather than the enhanced ones some people anticipate due to higher CO₂ levels because we are growing things in the “wrong” place.  These impacts may be compounded by impacts on populations of pollinator species and land use issues caused by the demands of a burgeoning global population.  I would accept that higher CO₂ is good for life generally, but it is hard to see how it is good for Homo sapiens specifically.   

Whilst in the controlled conditions of a lab or commercial greenhouse, increased CO₂ can significantly boost growth in some plants, the evidence in the real world does not support it, where, more often than not, other factors – such as soil fertility and water availability are the limiting factors to growth/ production. There are also species that respond to increasing temperatures by reducing growth (often to limit moisture loss). 

It is also expected, that increased energy in the atmosphere is likely to result in increasing numbers of extreme weather events – these can devastate production on a local/ regional scale. Good examples of this include the shortage of the right quality wheat for weetabix due to the poor summer in the UK last year http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-22248961 or the devastation of the Italian basil crop in 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5267796.stm  whilst, of course, any one weather event is impossible to (scientifically) link to increasing CO₂, it is an increasingly reasonable connection to make. 

We are entering almost entirely uncharted territory climate wise.  This is because the paleo-historic temperature increases, whether resulting from Milankovitch cycles, or other mechanisms, appears to drive increasing atmospheric CO₂ levels.  In the current situation, the reverse is true - the consensus is that increasing CO₂ will drive temperatures upwards.  The only occasion when there is clear evidence that this happened before is the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.  The PETM resulted in a mass extinction (and subsequent re-radiation) of foraminifera species (a kind of plankton) but also in the diversification of mammal species.   Unfortunately, the cause of the PETM is unclear, although there is a lot of academic interest in it.


* as is much of the assumption heavy analysis / group think posted on Anthony Watt’s site.

[MoreCarbonOK]

Mazurka says
 In the current situation, the reverse is true - the consensus is that increasing CO2 will drive temperatures upwards.

Henry says
huh?
You actually have the  results (from actual tests and measurements)  that I have been looking for?
Where are they?

I first studied the mechanism by which AGW is supposed to work. I will spare you all the scientific details. I quickly figured that the proposed mechanism implies that more GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect. 

It followed naturally, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2)  or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth.

I subsequently took a sample of 47 weather stations, analysed all daily data, and determined the ratio of the speed in the increase of the maximum temperature (maxima), means and minima.

You will find that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period (i.e. from 1973/1974) for which we have very reliable records, we find the results of the speed of warming, maxima : means: minima

0.036 : 0.014 : 0.006 in degrees C/annum.

That is ca. 6:2:1. So it was maxima pushing up minima and means and not the other way around. Anyone can duplicate this experiment and check this trend in their own backyard or at the weather station nearest to you.

 Having effectively found little or no real evidence of AGW in the temperature records, I did notice that anyone (like me) now querying the “certainty” of “climate change” being due mostly to AGW, are mocked or vilified in the media and the blogosphere. However, it also appeared to me that most people do not even understand the very basics of the chemistry involved. Any (good) chemist knows that there are giga tons and giga tons of bi-carbonates dissolved in the oceans and that (any type of) warming would cause it to be released:

HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-.

This is the actual reason we are alive today. Cause and effect, get it? There is a causal relationship. More warming naturally causes more CO2. Without warmth and carbon dioxide there would be nothing, really. To make that what we dearly want, i.e. more crops, more trees, lawns and animals and people, nature uses water and carbon dioxide and warmth, mostly.

<link to scientifically unsupported blog removed, in line with previous notifications by the mod. team>

[Bored chemist]

henry@bored chemist
they did tests in 1970 with rats
they upped the mixture to 60% CO2
but still had 20% oxygen
the rats would not die
(I have no pity on those rats)
Roempps
check it yourself/ @ Roempps
CO2 is not a poison
the fact that you live actually proves it

And your assertion was that more is better. So, what about 100% CO2?
Also, at levels greater than a few % it is plainly toxic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia#Tolerance

Survival isn't the same as health.

[MoreCarbonOK]

bored chemist says
Also, at levels greater than a few % it is plainly toxic.

henry says
who uses wiki for reference?
roempps suggests that maybe at a few % it becomes a bit uncomfortable, but never toxic.
everything at high concentration becomes toxic eventually, even sugar or salt.
Anyway, we are talking about a few hundredth of a %, not one or two %
it went from 0.03% to 0.04% in 100 years.
and the result was this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/

the earth is getting greener

this is why they add it to greenhouses (1500 ppm)

so more carbon is OK!

[wolfekeeper]

No, as I understand it, the studies indeed show some increase in growth, but then the vegetation gets limited by other factors.

Meanwhile the higher temperatures reduce growth. In addition higher temperatures are going to increase desertification and similar issues.

While the biosphere can adapt in the very long run, the changes are happening much too quickly.

[damocles]

from henry (moreCarbonOK):

Clifford,
are you a chemisdt?
Any (good) chemist knows that there are giga tons and giga tons of bi-carbonates dissolved in the oceans and that (any type of) warming would cause it to be released:

HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-.

This is the actual reason we are alive today. Cause and effect, get it? There is a causal relationship. More warming naturally causes more CO2. Without warmth and carbon dioxide there would be nothing, really. To make that what we dearly want, i.e. more crops, more trees, lawns and animals and people, nature uses water and carbon dioxide and warmth, mostly.

Wake up out of your dream worlds. More CO2 is better. I hope you at least agree with me on that.

Henry are you a chemist? Any (good) chemist knows that there must be a stoichiometric balance in an equation system like the one you have been quoting so frequently to justify your simplistic assumption.

If the equation that you are relying on to account for the increase in atmospheric CO2 as the result of increasing temperature, then the alkalinity of sea water would be rising in accordance with the increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact it has been falling. This is more in line with the conventional explanation of a steady increase in atmospheric CO2 in line with human activity, with approximately one third of the additional CO2 burden being taken up by the world's oceans. An analysis of the global sources and sinks of CO2 also matches the conventional explanation: CO2 is mostly generated over land, and much more over populated industrialized land, and is mostly absorbed in the oceans. The models now have a fine enough resolution to pick out specific areas of ocean, e.g. the Behring Strait, where CO2 is being released to the atmosphere. But they are more than compensated for by the overall effect of the oceans in absorbing CO2. (By the way this has been confirmed by direct measurement).

[Mazurka]

Mazurka says
 In the current situation, the reverse is true - the consensus is that increasing CO2 will drive temperatures upwards.

Henry says
huh?
You actually have the  results (from actual tests and measurements)  that I have been looking for?
Where are they?

I was referring to the observed lag of CO2 levels behind temperatures through most of the quaternary. In other words other mechanisms were forcing the climate change observed -  this is likely to primarily be the Milankovitch cycles.  The one event where it appears temperature rise lags behind CO2 levels is the PETM. 

I first studied the mechanism by which AGW is supposed to work. I will spare you all the scientific details. I quickly figured that the proposed mechanism implies that more GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect. 

It followed naturally, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2)  or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth.

  Whilst I accept the logic of this, I disagree as it is an over simplification of an exceedingly complex system, that we (mankind) have an imperfect understanding of.

I subsequently took a sample of 47 weather stations, analysed all daily data, and determined the ratio of the speed in the increase of the maximum temperature (maxima), means and minima.

You will find that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period (i.e. from 1973/1974) for which we have very reliable records, we find the results of the speed of warming, maxima : means: minima

0.036 : 0.014 : 0.006 in degrees C/annum.

That is ca. 6:2:1. So it was maxima pushing up minima and means and not the other way around. Anyone can duplicate this experiment and check this trend in their own backyard or at the weather station nearest to you.

That does seem to be a very small data sample.  I vaugely recall an analysis on WUWT in realtion to the locations of weather stations that fell apart quite quickly after it was scrutinised

Having effectively found little or no real evidence of AGW in the temperature records, I did notice that anyone (like me) now querying the “certainty” of “climate change” being due mostly to AGW, are mocked or vilified in the media and the blogosphere.

It depends on where you look.  The group think/ confirmation bias seen at WUWT and similar blogs very much applauds "skeptic" coments/ polemic

However, it also appeared to me that most people do not even understand the very basics of the chemistry involved. Any (good) chemist knows that there are giga tons and giga tons of bi-carbonates dissolved in the oceans and that (any type of) warming would cause it to be released:

HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-.

This is the actual reason we are alive today.

Whilst I hesitate from making what could be seen as an Ad hominem comment, thus confirming your perception that self claimed climate skeptics are attacked in the blogosphere, I think this statement illustrates the problem.  It is partially true.  It is a contributory factor as to why mankind is alive today not the "actual reason" why we are here today.  There was plenty of CO2  in the atmosphere before the Oxygenation event 1.8Ga...

Cause and effect, get it? There is a causal relationship. More warming naturally causes more CO2. Without warmth and carbon dioxide there would be nothing, really. To make that what we dearly want, i.e. more crops, more trees, lawns and animals and people, nature uses water and carbon dioxide and warmth, mostly.

<link to scientifically unsupported blog removed, in line with previous notifications by the mod. team>

Again, a facile generalisation, no one is disagreeing with the notion that warmth and CO2 are factors  essential to life as we know it.  I disagree that in reality "on the ground", that increased CO2 universally leads to more growth.  This is because other factors are important to life as well.  Furthermore, extremes of weather driven by climate change  can,  in a timescale as short as a few hours, destroy harvests of particular crops.

[MoreCarbonOK]

wolfekeeper syas
No, as I understand it, the studies indeed show some increase in growth, but then the vegetation gets limited by other factors.

Henry says
The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed.

Carbon dioxide enters into the plant through the stomatal openings by the process of diffusion. Stomata are specialized cells located mainly on the underside of the leaves in the epidermal layer. The cells open and close allowing gas exchange to occur. The concentration of CO2 outside the leaf strongly influences the rate of CO2 uptake by the plant. The higher the CO2 concentration outside the leaf, the greater the uptake of CO2 by the plant. Light levels, leaf and ambient air temperatures, relative humidity, water stress and the CO2 and oxygen (O2) concentration in the air and the leaf, are many of the key factors that determine the opening and closing of the stomata.

Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm. The decrease in photosynthesis when CO2 level drops from 340 ppm to 200 ppm is similar to the increase when the CO2 levels are raised from 340 to about 1,300 ppm (Figure 1). As a rule of thumb, a drop in carbon dioxide levels below ambient has a stronger effect than supplementation above ambient.
etc. read it here:

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

did you notice that life was really lucky to have developed at all with so little CO2 in the air? 180 is the lower limit. Below that, life will not exist.
Everything we eat and drink (except water) depends on CO2
Anyone wanting less of water and CO2 must be daft.

[MoreCarbonOK]

wolfekeeper says
Meanwhile the higher temperatures reduce growth. In addition higher temperatures are going to increase desertification and similar issues.

henry says
temperatures are not going up.
if you want to be technical: they have stayed unchanged for 16 years.
If you knew what I know, (by studying maximum temperatures in particular) you would realize that we have started cooling down since about the beginning of the new milennium.
This (cooling) will cause drought, at the higher latitudes, not the lower latitudes.

[MoreCarbonOK]

Wolfekeeper says
While the biosphere can adapt in the very long run, the changes are happening much too quickly.

henry says
60% of the CO2 that we put up in the air has simply gone "missing"
where do you think it has disappeared into?
(7 billion people wanting more plants, more lawns, more trees, and more food in their stomachs, perhaps?)

[wolfekeeper]

Tell you what, why don't you read the peer-reviewed papers on these subjects, and find out what the truth is rather than hanging out on echo-chamber websites?

I know it's dangerous, for example you might learn something, rather than simply having 'an opinion'; everyone has an opinion, but I personally respect people that have experimental data directly backing up their opinion.

[MoreCarbonOK]

wolfekeeper says
rather than simply having 'an opinion'; everyone has an opinion, but I personally respect people that have experimental data directly backing up their opinion.

henry says
I did my own investigations, and very thorough at that, if I may say so myself...

but Imatfaal says

This is a clear warning - one more link to your blog will lead to your suspension. 

imatfaal - moderator

Clearly, this is a catch 21 situation?

You must speak to him, not to me?

try google
climate change henryp
and see if you can find my results...

[wolfekeeper]

Sorry, but I don't believe you've done a proper sceptical analysis of the sources. People that have done a proper analysis don't come to the conclusions you have.

[MoreCarbonOK]

henry@wolfekeeper
That was a very scientific argument. Thx. for the insult. God bless you for that!
You go with the 97% and..
I go ..ehh.. with myself....
Meanwhile, in another country, we are only 1.5 hours away from the record (cold) in Alaska
and the ice that is NOT melting...
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47872.msg411911#new