Carbon dioxide levels hit new high

drkelly

drkelly

Dipstick who put two vehicles on jack stands
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Location
Oak Ridge/Stokesdale, NC
I read very little climate change/global warming news, so cannot hold an intelligent discussion on the subject, but this information popped up last night.

Carbon dioxide levels hit new high in May surpassing 414ppm.

Carbon dioxide levels in atmosphere hit record high in May: Monthly average surpassed 414 ppm at NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii

After a little more reading, apparently carbon dioxide levels were as high as 4,000ppm 500 million years ago, and have been as low as 180ppm during the last 2 million years. 414ppm though is the highest in the past 400,000 years though as measured from ice core samples.

Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
 
drkelly said:
apparently carbon dioxide levels were as high as 4,000ppm 500 million years ago, and have been as low as 180ppm during the last 2 million years
Click to expand...

I always struggle with these "guesses"

Who was there to document any of that?


Yes, I had enough science in college to understand theory, but it's no longer presented as "theory" only FACT (see also CNN)
 
CasterTroy said:
I always struggle with these "guesses"

Who was there to document any of that?


Yes, I had enough science in college to understand theory, but it's no longer presented as "theory" only FACT (see also CNN)
Click to expand...
Rocks and plants. Which we can pull the Co2 levels out of today.
 
Ice core sampling has great historical and present data.
 
CasterTroy said:
I always struggle with these "guesses"

Who was there to document any of that?


Yes, I had enough science in college to understand theory, but it's no longer presented as "theory" only FACT (see also CNN)
Click to expand...

From what I understand, they can get the data from ice core samples in Antarctica and Greenland as far back as 400,000-800,000 yrs ago. Farther back than that is maybe more difficult, or not as accurate, but can be done from rocks etc like Ratlabguy said. I read about this for a while last night, but am still learning.
 
drkelly said:
From what I understand, they can get the data from ice core samples in Antarctica and Greenland as far back as 400,000-800,000 yrs ago.
Click to expand...

This is where a dummy like me gets confused. Carbon dating has changed from "hundreds of thousands" of year to "miliions of years" to "hundreds of millions of years" since I was a kid.
How do you date the fossil?
By what level of soil it was found in​
How do you date the soil?
By what fossil was found in the layer
​

Reading my educational dinosaur books and reading my KIDS dinosaur books was almost humorous

My book: "Scientists theorize that millions of years ago"
Kids book: "480 million years ago"

@RatLabGuy is the expert and data cruncher. And I'm just an observer that pays attention every once and a while, so I'm not attempting to enter some heavy debate about the subject. Just find it kinda ironic how the agenda has kind of changed to fit the mold over the decades
 
This all kinda goes with what climate scientists say. We are “due” for an ice age, read that as a time with rapid climate change. I don’t believe people are the sole reason for the climate change I do think we play a part in it but not at some of the extras that are being said.

If we were to go into an ice age it doesn’t happen over night, we could be in the start of it now for all we know and none of us or our kids will probably be alive to see half the world frozen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
CasterTroy said:
This is where a dummy like me gets confused. Carbon dating has changed from "hundreds of thousands" of year to "miliions of years" to "hundreds of millions of years" since I was a kid.
How do you date the fossil?
By what level of soil it was found in​
How do you date the soil?
By what fossil was found in the layer
​

Reading my educational dinosaur books and reading my KIDS dinosaur books was almost humorous

My book: "Scientists theorize that millions of years ago"
Kids book: "480 million years ago"

@RatLabGuy is the expert and data cruncher. And I'm just an observer that pays attention every once and a while, so I'm not attempting to enter some heavy debate about the subject. Just find it kinda ironic how the agenda has kind of changed to fit the mold over the decades
Click to expand...
Carbon dating measures the decay of the carbon with in the sample. From my understanding the artifact you are dating must have been living at one point so animals and plants in order to be able to date it. It has alot to do with the carbons half life.

I understand how we can measure co2 via ice cores by capturing the air that was captured within the ice then measure it and performing this on each layer of ice. But I have never heard the process for going back hundreds of millions of years to measure the co2.



Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
Ron said:
But...screw a def tank, right?
And who needs catalytic converters?
Click to expand...
But how much of an effect do those things have compared to the cost of development, production, maintenance, loss of fuel economy, etc? FWIW, my truck is still stock, and I like some of the benefits of the clean exhaust, but I think it's a folly to believe they are making any significant difference.
 
Loganwayne said:
This all kinda goes with what climate scientists say. We are “due” for an ice age, read that as a time with rapid climate change. I don’t believe people are the sole reason for the climate change I do think we play a part in it but not at some of the extras that are being said.

If we were to go into an ice age it doesn’t happen over night, we could be in the start of it now for all we know and none of us or our kids will probably be alive to see half the world frozen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yeah I believe that theory is based on places where hundreds of millions of years of rock is exposed like the grand canyon. They can make a time line based on the different type of rock and sediment found. I think we are in the early stages of one but that's my opinion.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
I am gonna show just how bad my Chatham County public school education is, but isn't carbon dioxide good for plants which is in turn good for us cause the plants make oxygen? What is the negative side effect to there being too much carbon dioxide in the air? I know that we of course need oxygen and but does the higher level of carbon dioxide make the atmosphere toxic to us?
 
superman27344 said:
I am gonna show just how bad my Chatham County public school education is, but isn't carbon dioxide good for plants which is in turn good for us cause the plants make oxygen? What is the negative side effect to there being too much carbon dioxide in the air? I know that we of course need oxygen and but does the higher level of carbon dioxide make the atmosphere toxic to us?
Click to expand...
My 20 years ago high school science explanation...
Plants "breathe in" carbon dioxide (CO2) and expel oxygen. We breathe in oxygen and expel CO2. There are more and more people and less and less plants (deforestation, loss of rain forests, etc). Add in CO2 emissions from cars, industries, etc and the plants can't keep up.
 
I think humans have a lot of hubris to believe we are having such a huge effect on the environment. Do we have an effect? I think so, but I don't think we are the sole, or even the main cause of Climate Change. Earth has gone trough these cycles since before man even existed, and the rise in CO2 is hard to separate frome the rise in temperature, as polar Ice melts, It releases CO2... CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat (We NEED heat trapped on earth, but only a balanced amount, with no greenhouse gases, Earth would be a very cold place..).

Humans probably have no more effect on Climate Change than a couple good volcanic eruptions would...
 
LBarr2002 said:
My 20 years ago high school science explanation...
Plants "breathe in" carbon dioxide (CO2) and expel oxygen. We breathe in oxygen and expel CO2. There are more and more people and less and less plants (deforestation, loss of rain forests, etc). Add in CO2 emissions from cars, industries, etc and the plants can't keep up.
Click to expand...

So if the plants could keep up, we wouldn’t have a problem. It’s clearly the plants fault.
 
It's all these damn new neighborhoods where they come in and cut down all the trees. That's what's causing global warming.
 
So we are drawing conclusion about CO2 based off of one reading in the middle of the Pacific? (At least that's what I'm gathering in my quick reading) If that's the case this is just misleading propaganda meant to strike fear into to people. How about showing historical data for LA, NYC, DC plus all some other large cities that are not in :usa:. Then show some readings of the complete opposite of what readings are in BFE (Forest's, desert's, etc.). To me knowing the CO2 levels in Hawaii doesn't say much for the atmospheric conditions around the world where there are much more densely populated than compared to Hawaii.
 
This is all beyond me. But I always find it hard to understand how someone could find something and estimate how old it is based on where it is and what is around it, especially when it comes to ice.
 
So like my stoner buddies in college would say...plant air absorbtion is directly related to surface area of their leafs, man.
And cannabis has a bunch of fawking leafs.
We need to plant more weed to solve global warming. But then we will all die because we are smothered by all the weed. So we better start destroying the weed so it doesnt pile up and bury us. Here help me roll this doobie.
Shit, maaan. Now the doobie is on fire and creating more heat. We are going to need to plant EVEN more weed plants
 
jeepinmatt said:
But how much of an effect do those things have compared to the cost of development, production, maintenance, loss of fuel economy, etc? FWIW, my truck is still stock, and I like some of the benefits of the clean exhaust, but I think it's a folly to believe they are making any significant difference.
Click to expand...

I've often wondered how much all the catalytic converters, DPF's etc are helping global emissions. According to this chart, transportation is responsible for 34% of the CO2 creation, but that is ALL transportation.

gases-by-co2-2019.jpg
 
CasterTroy said:
This is where a dummy like me gets confused. Carbon dating has changed from "hundreds of thousands" of year to "miliions of years" to "hundreds of millions of years" since I was a kid.
How do you date the fossil?
By what level of soil it was found in​
How do you date the soil?
By what fossil was found in the layer
​

Reading my educational dinosaur books and reading my KIDS dinosaur books was almost humorous

My book: "Scientists theorize that millions of years ago"
Kids book: "480 million years ago"

@RatLabGuy is the expert and data cruncher. And I'm just an observer that pays attention every once and a while, so I'm not attempting to enter some heavy debate about the subject. Just find it kinda ironic how the agenda has kind of changed to fit the mold over the decades
Click to expand...

Because dumb it down for the masses. Until the masses are dumb.

Couple real thoughts in my head here.
1) I always wonder about the ice and carbon dating. What if carbon trapped in ice has a half life of say X per 10k years. And we dont know it yet because we aint been studying it for 10k years yet. So we make assumptions based on what we can measure happen in 50 years and try and extrapolate it to 500MM years and...shit we forgot to carry the 1...

2) This is more related to @CasterTroy point above about simplifying until we change the meaning. I was reading somthing recently about Merle Haggard and his start in the music industry. How he taught himself to read so that he could learn classical music because back then, if you didnt understand the structure and formula of music record labels would even consider you. You had freedom to creat but you had to be able to explain what you created. was it 3/4 time, what instruments came in at what pitch etc. And about how all this played o the inner ear drum and elicited emotional resposne etc. And this was a rough neck. An outlaw. But if you wanted to entertain the masses you ahd to have knowledge. Then you could use that knowledge however you chose. Now you grab your phone, hit record and sudenly we have a song and millions digest it. Slowly over time musical structure and basis disolves into "whatever sounds good to the masses"...its sort of hedonistic in it "if it feels good do it" approach. And my freedom bone digs that. But is it disolving societal structure as we know it in the process?
 
Keith Odom said:
Yeah I believe that theory is based on places where hundreds of millions of years of rock is exposed like the grand canyon. They can make a time line based on the different type of rock and sediment found. I think we are in the early stages of one but that's my opinion.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yeah but we will never see a “real” effect of an ice Age besides small climate changes. A fast ice age would happen in a 1000 years. Unless there was something to trigger it, say the volcano that’s under Yellowstone? From predictions it’s could be the largest that on the earths service (does not include ones under water).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ron said:
he taught himself to read so that he could learn classical music because back then, if you didnt understand the structure and formula of music record labels would even consider you
Click to expand...
Many computer science graduates have no idea how to code. Our I.T. consultants are in their 60's and trying to pass the baton to a younger crowd. They've found no one under 35 that knows binary and/or how to write code. Only how to troubleshoot.
 
Back
Top