Should we be alarmed if CO2 keeps increasing?

CO2 levels have been far higher during previous ice ages.
_______________

Should we be alarmed if CO2 keeps increasing?

Yukon Jack

The Democrats seem mightily confused about climate change. “Climate Change” was the rebranding of “Global Warming” which is the idea that human caused CO2 emissions is causing temperature increase, specifically the fear was the rapid increase in CO2 was going to cause runaway heating of the atmosphere.

Al Gore even said in 2006 that in 10 years the surface of the earth was to become unlivable for human beings and be like a frying pan. Al Gore was wrong because CO2 going up is not driving temperature up, his belief in CO2 forcing temperature is an incorrect belief.

Dictionary: Climate Change is a long-term change in the earth’s climate, especially a change due to an increase in the average atmospheric temperature.

When global warming predictions failed, the definition was changed to “long term” and the global warming was dropped for climate change meme. But the problem is Nature is constantly changing the long term weather, so what part is human caused, and how do you know any change is an emergency on our part?

(Temperature, not Tempeture))

So should we be alarmed if CO2 keeps increasing to 420 ppm or 450 or 500 or 1000 ppm? The answer is no. See this chart:

CO2 levels have been 3,000 to 6,000 ppm in previous earth ice ages. And in fact it is snowing in Montana and Minnesota this week in mid October. Snowfalls are early, not “a thing of the past”.
_______________

Note: I (Robert) previously posted a similar graph here:
|Anyone who says we’re enduring “unprecedented global warming” is lying or woefully misinformed

Anyone who says we’re enduring “unprecedented global warming” is lying or woefully misinformed


7 thoughts on “Should we be alarmed if CO2 keeps increasing?”

  1. Warmer is better. I hope that they are right and CO2 is keeping us warm in the current little ice age, beginning of full blown ice age, though I know they are not.

  2. All I will say is that “climate” goes in cycles, which we have absolutely no control over. Anyone who refers to daily changes in weather, and seasonal changes in weather, as climate is misinformed. The only way to stop that is to keep the facts in front of people.
    That blizzard in Norway, back in July this year, which blindsided everyone up there, was NOT a climate shift. It was simply oddball weather. If the temperature had been warmer, those snowbanks that required huge mechanical shovels to clear out the roads would have been extreme rainfall, which has also hit other parts of the planet. And that’s almost worse than snow because extreme rainfall turns into extreme flooding.
    That’s why I keep a weather eye on the jet stream: are WE getting those bigger loops in the jet stream (Rossby waves), or is it only happening elsewhere?
    If it’s once or twice, or even 10 times over several decades, it’s weather, and we’ve had some weather events that made baby tantrums seem like nothing. And how much soot from the western fires is going to stay in the upper atmosphere, and for how long, and how much future effect will it have on the weather? Those are things we should be asking about, because it affects our lives now.
    Just keep up the good work, Robert. And everyone else: if you want to, keeping a daily weather diary can serve a good purpose as long as you’re accurate. You’ll have something to give to your grandkids.

  3. CO2 is not the problem. Where Humans are causing massive damage however is with pollution and habitat destruction causing mass extinction of other species.

    • You are partially right. But yo are actually thinking of the wrong pollution. Like it or not, chemical pollution will, over time, “recycle itself,” and without a doubt, causes damage to the environment, including loss of species. Mass extinctions are not likely to be caused by that. When it comes to mass extinctions, the ball in the sky does a whole helluva lot better than we can when it hiccups.

      But man IS polluting the world, and causing considerable damage in a far more invisible way. We are polluting our living space, and undoubtedly causing more damage with our RF pollution than with our chemicals. The Earth deals with the chemicals quite well over time, but it has never been subjected to the broad spectrum of RF we are experiencing since the magnetosphere, the ionosphere, and the van allen belts have always created a natural defense against EMF from outer space above about 120 mhz, with a window in the shield from infrared to ultraviolet.

      We have packed our environment with these frequency bands and it is THIS pollution that is causing the greatest damage. And you know what? you will give up your freedom to move freely around the world before you will give up the convenience of remote control and the cell phone.

  4. The major problem with this chart is the fact we are in another ICE Age at this time, and have been for the last 2.5 Milion years.
    With the definition of an ICE cap close or situated on both Pole at the same time.
    What is termed the Holocene only covers the last 200,000 years and two separate Interglacials, withe the previous a full 6C higher than our current but ending Holocene Interglacial which is on Trend to hit the 0C tipping point in around 1500 years from now.

    • Jim Bob the Holocene is the name for the current interglacial. It has lasted only 11,500 plus or minus a bit. 200,000 years is the estimate for the period of time in which the subspecies of modern man has been around.
      The world as we know it as a species group today isn’t that old even though the planet and other life forms is far older.

Comments are closed.