[wolfekeeper]

That's weather, not climate, and it's local weather; we already covered that.

You're clearly not listening to us, as well as not reading the research.

[Bored chemist]

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

so more carbon is OK!

More carbon is OK if you are a vegetable.
In particular, if you are a plant which is being looked after in all other respects- most notably the supply of water and other requirements (N, P, K etc).

But, obviously, most wild plants and even crops are not. (Especially in the developing world).
For them , the limiting factor is likely to be water.
And messing with the thermodynamics of the atmosphere means that the rain falls in different places to where it used to.
But the plants can't get up and walk to where the rain is- so they die.

So more CO2 isn't a good thing.
Perhaps you should breathe some until you can come to your own independent view, rather than trusting wiki (or even this).
http://www.bmj.com/content/2/5103/1012

[CliffordK (OP)]

As far as CO₂ poisoning.  At high levels, carbon dioxide is routinely used as a euthanasia agent.

However, it is likely that humans and most animals would be able to adapt to a slow increase of CO₂ over hundreds, or thousands of years.  Certainly significant toxicity wouldn't be reached at levels less than 1% CO2 (10,000 ppm).

That is, except perhaps for crustaceans.  But even the crustaceans have likely evolved during times of relatively high CO₂ levels.  One of the problems with the crustaceans is that we are adding the CO₂ to the surface of the ocean faster than it can diffuse through the entire ocean.

Plants are divided into C₃ plants (many of our grains, wheat, barley, most trees, etc) and C₄ plants (corn, sugarcane).  The C₄ plants likely are experiencing close to their peak growth rate at current CO₂ levels.  Adding more CO₂ won't help them significantly.  The C₃ plants, on the other hand, will likely experience some increased growth based on the increased CO₂ levels, but as BC mentioned, it will also depend on heat, water, other nutrients, and other factors.

Earth has experienced many climate changes in the past, and not everything died off.  But, it may take some time to adapt, and some people believe that the speed at which the climate is currently changing is faster than has happened in the past.

[MoreCarbonOK]

henry@clifford & bored chemist.
I looked again at the books.
In the case of rabbits, they found that the animals would not die if they went to 65%, as long as they kept O2 up at normal 21%. On these results I quote from roempps: (translated from german)
"The conclusion from this (i.e. the results as mentioned above) is that as such we can hardly regard CO2 as a poison. This is further proven by the fact that we consume CO2 in large quantities in our bodies with carbonated cooldrinks, without any disadvantage, and that in the human BODY (not plants only!!) CO2 circles around in the blood at comparative high levels (50-60 vol. % in venoesen? blood) of which we daily breath out about 700 grams. Human can breath for hours in 2.5% CO2 without any damage.
end quote; ()& ? is my comment

Anyways, like I said, we are talking about 0.01% added in 100 yrs, not  1 or 2 % or 65%. And I hope you understand that 0.02% is not enough for life.
Even salt and sugar are poisonous if the concentration is high enough....
Danger does exist from CO2 sources, especially natural sources,  because, among other things, we must not forget that it is heavier than air and therefore we can die of asphyxiation (lack of oxygen) rather than CO2 poisoning.

Climate is changing because we are naturally cycling back to cooler times.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47872.msg411911#new
The models predicted that the arctic would warm,
but I showed you that the models are wrong, anyway.

[damocles]

OK then Henry, let us consider the reaction

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

CO2 (g)  delta H°f = –314 kJ/mol   S° =  213.6 J/mol/K   delta G°f   –315 kJ/mol
HCO3(-)(aq)  delta H°f = –691.99 kJ/mol  S° =  91.2 J/mol/K  delta G°f  = –586.77 kJ/mol
OH(-)(aq)  delta H°f = –230 kJ/mol  S° = –10.75 J/mol/K  delta G°f = –157.24 kJ/mol

reaction  delta H° = 148 kJ/mol  delta S° = 111.65 J/mol/K   delta G° = 114.5 kJ/mol

These figures are taken from standard values at 25°C, so at 15°C  delta G° = 115.7 kJ/mol

how did I arrive at this figure? You will need to put aside your favoured websites and read a bit of genuine chemical thermodynamics!

The equilibrium constant K_p is then given by p(CO2) * a(OH–]/a[HCO3–] = exp (– delta G°rxn /R /T)

Substituting in for a(OH–) and a(HCO3–) gives us

p(CO2) * 7E–7 / 5.E-3 = exp ( –115.7 / 8.314 / 0.288 )

leading to p(CO2) = 5.E-3 * 1.E-21 / 7.E-7 = 7.E-18

Still with me? Good! But what does it mean?

What it means is that sea water, on average, has the capacity to take in more carbon dioxide. Far from being released, this treatment shows that, on the whole, an increase in temperature does not release more carbon dioxide, but that carbon dioxide is continually being slowly taken up by the ocean. The equilibrium partial pressure of carbon dioxide is 7.E-18 atm, and the actual partial pressure of carbon dioxide is around 3.9E-4 atm

In order to participate properly in a scientific debate, you need to be particularly well read in the subject matter, you need to have done some original research and submitted it for peer review, and you need to listen to and carefully consider the reviewers' criticisms. If the journal editor refuses to submit your material for peer review that is usually a sign that your work is fairly obviously flawed. The alternative conspiracy theory is not really a goer, especially if you submit your work to a forum like this and find that it is not favourably received here either.

[MoreCarbonOK]

Henry@Damocles
your calculations are as much putting the horse behind the carriage as the IPCC's

You must always first observe before you "calculate"
What is expressed in my equation is that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere follows the warm periods, it does not cause warming,  I will give you many verifiable references that all seem to agree that CO2 lags by about 600-1000 years, e.g.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/



Here is a quote from CO2science.org :

For the past two decades or more, we have heard much about the global warming of the 20th century being caused by the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration that is generally attributed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This story, however, has always been controversial [see Smagorinsky et al. (1982) and Idso (1982) for early pro/con positions on the issue]; and with the retrieval and preliminary analysis of the first long ice core from Vostok, Antarctica — which provided a 150,000-year history of both surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration — the debate became even more intense, as the close associations of the ups and downs of atmospheric CO2 and temperature that were evident during glacial terminations and inceptions in that record, as well as in subsequent records of even greater length, led many climate alarmists to claim that those observations actually proved that anthropogenic CO2 emissions were responsible for 20th-century global warming.
This contention was challenged by Idso (1989), who wrote — in reference to the very data that were used to support the claim — that “changes in atmospheric CO2 content never precede changes in air temperature, when going from glacial to interglacial conditions; and when going from interglacial to glacial conditions, the change in CO2 concentration actually lags the change in air temperature (Genthon et al., 1987).” Hence, he concluded that “changes in CO2 concentration cannot be claimed to be the cause of changes in air temperature, for the appropriate sequence of events (temperature change following CO2 change) is not only never present, it is actually violated in [at least] half of the record (Idso, 1988).”

How has our understanding of this issue progressed in the interim? Our website provides several updates.

Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception “the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years” and that “the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination.” Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that “the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions.”

On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air’s CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP — which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition — Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years.

In a somewhat different type of study, Yokoyama et al. (2000) analyzed sediment facies in the tectonically stable Bonaparte Gulf of Australia to determine the timing of the initial melting phase of the last great ice age. In commenting on the results of that study, Clark and Mix (2000) note that the rapid rise in sea level caused by the melting of land-based ice that began approximately 19,000 years ago preceded the post-glacial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 3,000 years.

So what’s the latest on the issue? To our knowledge, the most recent study to broach the subject is that of Caillon et al. (2003), who measured the isotopic composition of argon — specifically, ð40Ar, which they argue “can be taken as a climate proxy, thus providing constraints about the timing of CO2 and climate change” — in air bubbles in the Vostok ice core over the period that comprises what is called Glacial Termination III, which occurred about 240,000 years BP. The results of their tedious but meticulous analysis led them to ultimately conclude that “the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years.”

This finding, in the words of Caillon et al., “confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation.” Nevertheless, they and many others continue to hold to the view that the subsequent increase in atmospheric CO2 — which is believed to be due to warming-induced CO2 outgassing from the world’s oceans — serves to amplify the warming that is caused by whatever prompts the temperature to rise in the first place. This belief, however, is founded on unproven assumptions about the strength of CO2-induced warming and is applied without any regard for biologically-induced negative climate feedbacks that may occur in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Also, there is no way to objectively determine the strength of the proposed amplification from the ice core data.

In consequence of these several observations, the role of CO2 as a primary driver of climate change on earth would appear to be going, going, gone; while the CO2 warming amplification hypothesis rings mighty hollow.

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso
References
Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731.

Clark, P.U. and Mix, A.C. 2000. Ice sheets by volume. Nature 406: 689-690.

Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.

Genthon, C., Barnola, J.M., Raynaud, D., Lorius, C., Jouzel, J., Barkov, N.I., Korotkevich, Y.S. and Kotlyakov, V.M. 1987. Vostok ice core: Climatic response to CO2 and orbital forcing changes over the last climatic cycle. Nature 329: 414-418.

Idso, S.B. 1982. Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? IBR Press, Tempe, AZ.

Idso, S.B. 1988. Carbon dioxide and climate in the Vostok ice core. Atmospheric Environment 22: 2341-2342.

Idso, S.B. 1989. Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition. IBR Press, Tempe, AZ.

Indermuhle, A., Monnin, E., Stauffer, B. and Stocker, T.F. 2000. Atmospheric CO2 concentration from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters 27: 735-738.

I hope this helps to explain things for you.

[wolfekeeper]

You're quoting from CO2Science.org, who say with regards their funding:

Nevertheless, questions about funding persist, and they are clearly of great interest to many people, as evidenced by the spate of publicity aroused by the 4 Sep 2006 letter of Bob Ward (Senior Manager for Policy Communication of the UK's Royal Society) to Nick Thomas (Esso UK Limited's Director of Corporate Affairs), as well his criticism of us in his BBC Today Programe interview of 21 Sep 2006 with Sarah Montague, where he pointedly described our Center as being one of the organizations funded by ExxonMobil that "misrepresent the science of climate change."

That we tell a far different story from the one espoused by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is true; and that may be why ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few times in the past; they probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue.

Uh huh. No chance of this being selectively quoted then from the literature, I'm sure that's full and balanced. Oh. Wait.

[damocles]

From MoreCarbonOK:

your calculations are as much putting the horse behind the carriage as the IPCC's

I do not believe that I am, and the scientific jury certainly does not believe that the IPCC is

You must always first observe before you "calculate"

Yes, certainly, but I have observed carbon dioxide uptake by the oceans, and my calculation only serves to show how ridiculous your use of that equation is in this context.

What is expressed in my equation is that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere follows the warm periods, it does not cause warming

No, your use of that particular equation does not show that at all. (Actually, all that it really shows is how shallow your understanding of the subject is). Certainly it has been the case throughout the ice ages and interglacial periods that CO2 has followed behind temperature rises. It has been generally a bistable system with a level around 200 ppm in the ice ages rising to around 280 ppm in the interglacials. But what has happened in the last 150 years is that CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 396 ppm. This has not been preceded by any temperature rise, is a remarkably short period on the time scale of the geological processes that have led to switching between the two attractors, and is easily accounted for by humanity's use of fossil fuels in the industrial revolution.

I will give you many verifiable references that all seem to agree that CO2 lags by about 600-1000 years, e.g. ...

But I am not disputing this, and nor, if you read the report carefully, is the IPCC.

Here is a quote from CO2science.org :

A pity you had to use this deniers' webpage as the basis of your lengthy quote, although it does contain many good (if irrelevant) references.

I hope this helps to explain things for you.

well, no it does not, because all of this looking into the past is quite irrelevant to a new phenomenon brought about by the industrial revolution, and humanity's profligate consumption of fossil fuel reserves.

We have moved from a situation where a bistable system with attractors around 200 and 280 ppm has operated for at least a million years (and where CO2 levels have lagged behind temperature) into an unstable system where the level is 396 ppm and rising fast over a timespan of a mere 150 years

[wolfekeeper]

CO2Science.org says:

"our individual scrutinizing of the pertinent scientific literature and our analyses of what we find there, which we have been doing and subsequently writing about on our website on a weekly basis without a single break since 15 Jul 2000, and twice-monthly before that since 15 Sep 1998 ... and no one could pay my sons and me enough money to do that."

Which is very high minded, although Wikipedia lists their yearly funding at $1,001,003 so I fail to see how that really works in practice. They've been paid a million dollars to write on their website once a week?

[MoreCarbonOK]

henry@damocles

Going by the various graphs from Joanna, for example, the Medeviel WP was about 0.4 or 0.5 warmer than 1950 but we were almost equal now, I think, in the modern warm period, before turning down now, to cooling.
I personally believe the Medieval WP was slightly warmer than the Modern WP due to the people in the middle ages in Holland being convinced that a north west passage had existed(remember Willem Barentz?).
This was also the time when large parts of Greenland were habitable and the Vikings prospered.There was a quick way via the north to get to America.

So your whole argument there falls a bit in the water.
There is no evidence for AGW in my tables (to which I cannot provide a link, because of Imatfaal). Other people have confirmed it too, by looking at various parameters that affect the GH effect.
e.g.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/an-analysis-of-night-time-cooling-based-on-ncdc-station-record-data

sorry if you have built your whole life around the 0.01% CO2
there is no AGW

[wolfekeeper]

Yup, nothing to be worried about there; the people being paid $1 million dollars a year by petroleum companies just to run a website to simply deny there's anything going on are likely right.

Funny how the upswing coincides with injecting trillions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, but what possible link could there really be?

Oh wait.

[Bored chemist]

"On these results I quote from roempps"
Who or what is that?
Did you not realise that you need to explain "references" like that?

[MoreCarbonOK]

henry@bored chemist

sorry
I thought all European chemists knew what I meant
it is Roempps Chemie Lexicon,
(Germany)
it has all the chemical properties of any known substance.

[MoreCarbonOK]

henry@wolfekeeper

The graph you referred to is the graph where they made the MWP almost go away
but if you look carefully you will see the peak at around 1000, larger than the ModernWP
(look at the graph on the bottom)

don't forget that there has been a large increase in accuracy of thermometers and temp. recording which also may explain some "warming" late 20th century.

the latest results here confirm my own results:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/monckton_hadcrut4_98month_graphic.png

We already dropped by about -0.1 degree C since 2002 (= one whole solar cycle)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/to:2014

and according to my own tables we will drop by as much as the maxima are dropping now, accelerating to a bit more than -0.9 degree K per century.
By 2040 we will be back to where we were in in 1950, more or less. The global cooling will not stop until 2039, at least, and then there is some lag after that.

[wolfekeeper]

If you look at the graph the temperature went down by about 0.2 between 1940 and 1960 or so, but the underlying trend was the same as it is now; if the temperature is more or less the same over the last ten years, it means absolutely nothing at all; we get natural variations of that order, but we've never seen a fast rise like the one we've been in since 1900, not in 2000 years. Since 1900 the temperature has gone up by a whole degree, and the CO2 is higher than it's been in millions of years, and we've been injecting huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the biosphere.

Note that the rise was predicted before the measurement, and at some points the experimental actually pointed away from global warming, but as measurements have improved, the signal has come ever more clearly out of the noise; this is the opposite of what happens with pseudoscience. Indeed the case for there not being global warming is becoming ever weaker, to the point where 97% of scientists are pretty sure it's happening, and that it's caused by humans. This is not just the thermometers reading better; the scientists have put in careful adjustments to the raw data to allow for that kind of thing, and the results have been calibrated against things like satellite temperature readings to check that that's been done correctly.

[MoreCarbonOK]

Henry@wolfekeeper

we have seen in my posts that the increase in CO2 from 0.03% 0.04% has caused a change in the biosphere:it has started booming. That is why we started adding CO2 in real greenhouses: you want big fruit & vegetable.

What is the logical consequence of this increase of the greening of earth?
What I have noted from my analyses of weather stations from all over the world is that where the change
in vegetation was dramatic, like in Las Vegas, which changed from a desert into a green paradise, in a relative short period of time, some heat gets trapped. Exactly the opposite happened in Tandil (ARG), where deforestation was noted. (If you want to see my tables, ask Imatfaal to approve links to my blog)
In the end, what I concluded from my tables is that
earth is warmed by
1) the sun, mostly
2) by itself (volcanic, core, lunar etc.), a little
3) by the increase in vegetation, a very little bit, due to entrapment of heat

Seeing that I also could see from my tables that the sun is going to take a nap (a figure of speech) I decided that more CO2 and more vegetation is good, to help us against the common (coming) cold....

Follow the results on my blog and you will begin to realize that we are only 6 or 7 years away from the droughts that became known in history as the Dust Bowl droughts 1932-1939 (USA). I think we will not be able to stop that from re-occurring.

Do you understand me now?

[wolfekeeper]

I understand that you're making new claims about the environment, that this particular effect, which is probably to some degree real, overwhelms all the other effects of raised CO2, many of which are negative, many of which are positive, as well as the effects of the high rate of increase of CO2, which are mostly only negative.

If you claim to know more than 97% of scientists, write it up and submit it to a proper scientific journal. That's how science works.

In the meantime the overall scientific evidence that is in the published record does not seem to agree with you.

[MoreCarbonOK]

Henry@wolfekeeper
Climate science is my hobby. No interest in the glory. But I challenge you and anybody to repeat my analyses.

[Bored chemist]

henry@bored chemist

sorry
I thought all European chemists knew what I meant
it is Roempps Chemie Lexicon,
(Germany)
it has all the chemical properties of any known substance.

Not all European chemists speak German.
Even Google doesn't recognise it.
Did you mean "Rompp Chemie Lexikon"
(It's a bit useless unless you have log-on credentials and read German)
and, if I am looking for information about human health I will look at the journals that cover that field, like the BMJ, rather than one that specialises in chemistry.

In the meantime, it's good to know that these people didn't really die.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083623/Two-French-wine-makers-suffocated-carbon-dioxide-fumes-grapes-treading.html

[MoreCarbonOK]

henry@bored chemist

suffocated = lack of oxygen

I told you to be careful with CO2

it is not poisonous

but it is heavy....