If CO2 is such a powerful greenhouse gas?

The Ordovician Glaciation event was an anomaly that is not understood what the cause was, another similar question is why did the climate NOT experience a run away greenhouse effect from atmospheric CO2 when it was over 7000 PPM before plants existed. The precambrian Epoch experienced an deep glaciation event as well, which drives the final nail in the coffin of the AGW theory, The Ordovician Epoch saw sea temperatures averaging 113 Degrees Farenheit and the evolution of Marine Fauna which lead to a more rapid sequestration of CO2. The Ordovician Glaciation Event occurred at the end of period and does not correlate with a change of atmospheric CO2 levels, they had been steady declining for many millennia. CO2 slowly declined over hundreds of millions of years as more organisms adapted to feed of this vital substance, but Earths climate however never showed any response to changes in atmospheric CO2 levels. CO2 levels appear to be an effect not a cause, regardless what time scale you study.

each carbon dioxide molecule absorbs some infra pink easy. i don't understand the thank you to calculate how lots is absorbed by each molecule, yet even one molecule could take in some. So it relatively is only a remember of what proportion carbon dioxide molecules does it take to soak up adequate infra pink easy to reason what volume of warming. it is not an on/off ingredient, it relatively is a steady substitute from none to all. needless to say the very small volume now in the air is closer to none than it relatively is to all. that's the only reason that our "puny" activities could have an bring about any respect, via fact it is so small. The source under became the suited i ought to discover, yet there must be extra helpful ones. The solutions that cope with your question are fairly far down the internet site yet are basic to discover by scanning the ambitious form headings.

Sagebrush? I have posted this numerous times. The effects of ENSO, the year to year variations,. are MORE POWERFUL than the effects of CO2. However those year to year variations and the effects do not mean the long term trend of CO2 does not exist. ENSO does little to affect the overall energy budget of the planet. It redistributes heat. Understand? The temperature measurements you have been posting all deal with the surface temperature. And, I believe, what you have been posting is HadCRUTV3 which leaves out vast amounts of the arctic as well. I repeat this again. If you want to know the total amount of energy or heat in the system you have to measure the ENTIRE SYSTEM. Understand? Why do people find it so hard to understand this? They would rather use cherry picked locations, temperature readings, and so on to make their case. It's silly just how many times I've had to explain this to you and you continue posting exactly the same nonsense.

And that graph by Geocraft.com has been debunked time and time again. IT uses tow different measurements from different studies, it does not include the effect of solar variation which was much less back then, and so on.

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

As stated, and has been mentioned in here numerous times, all weather occurring in the world, and the changing distribution of trends, deals with a changing climate. As the world warms natural factors react to that warming. In many areas the warmer, due to such things as El Ninos, get marginally warmer due to increasing CO2 concentration, and the colder get marginally warmer as well. In other places where the areas will be affected by heat being taken away from the area and redistributed elsewhere, say due to changing jet streams, It is due to an effects of more energy retention due to greenhouse gases and the changing of those jet streams as a result. All weather variation occurring currently is due to changing climactic factors in that area due, mainly, to increased greenhouse gas retention. there are, of course, a couple outliers such as Antarctica which is mostly being affected by increased wind speeds and decreased ozone concentration among other factors.

Deniers seem very willing to blame climate change today on solar changes, in spite of evidence that the solar input hasn't changed much lately.

Then you ignore the evidence that the solar input was considerably lower during the Ordovician.

You evidently can't consider more than one variable at a time - whichever one agrees with your prejudices better.

Jesus Fckin Christ, why don't you for once actually research the shlt your read? There were only four continents at that time, There was a 0.5-million-year period of glaciation at the very end of the Ordovician - in the southern hemisphere only - related to decreasing tectonic volcanism - the release of silica when began a reduction in CO2 - and the geography of Gondwana.

Why was this glacial period preceded by a rapid and dramatic decrease in atmospheric CO2?

Either learn something or STFU.

======

edit --

But then is not now. For whatever reason, Deniers cannot seem to understand that the earth's climate system 100s of millions of years ago is not the same system that exists today. It is called being non-stationary.

>>just showing the mighty CO2 was not that mighty in this case<<

And, exactly how are you showing that by pointing to a glacial event that was preceded by a rapid and monster drop (as in being cut in half) in atmospheric CO2? If anything you just provided more evidence for AGW theory - not less.

=====

Caliservative --

>>STFU is apparently part of the revised (post-normal) scientific method.<<

Your ignorance of science may only be exceeded by your ignorance about scientists. You've seen too many movies where scientists are always either insane monsters trying to dominate the planet or nerds. It ain't that way. If think more along the lines of Bikers-with-Brains, you're be closer to reality.

Newton was the biggest a-s-whole who ever lived - and that still seems to be the dominant gene.

For more than a decade the Earth's temperature has gone down,

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2...

Yet at the same time the Earth's CO2 level has risen. If it is an influence at all, it is not a very powerful one. Jeff M blames ENSO for this reduction. If this is true, then CO2 is less powerful than ENSO. Now how powerful can that be?

Ha! Ha! Jeff M: Talk some sense. I read your redistribution theory and it is bunk. If you have one bank account, how do you redistribute the money in that account? If you have $100 in the bank, as long as you don't take any money out or put any money in, you can redistribute all you want and you still you only have $100. Same way with the earth's energy budget. There is only one figure for the total earth's energy budget. You can redistribute it all you want but you will wind up with only one accurate number for the Earth's energy budget.

Now James Hansen and Phil Jones agree with me. Why are you fighting against them?

John Barnes,a climate scientist bemoans this very fact : “If you look at the last decade of global temperature, it’s not increasing,” Barnes said. “There’s a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained. Why didn’t we warm up?”..."We do have satellites that can measure the energy budget, but there’s still assumptions there. There’s assumptions about the oceans, because we don’t have a whole lot of measurements in the ocean.”.

Let us face it! You don't know if the Earth's temperature is going up or down, do you? Yet you spout off your phony wisdom and flip charts and preach temperature redistribution like you really know what you are talking about. You are a phony and your fraudulent theories are ridiculous. It is only natural that I don't see your way because I seek the truth and I don't allow anyone to buffalo me. Show me the proof! Nothing else will do.

Totally agree with Gary F.

I'd like to add that you really ought to get your data from a more reliable source. geocraft.com graphs (even the ones hosted over at photobucket) are really not a reliable source. And with reliable I mean: it does not reflect the current scientific understanding on the issue).

The author of geocraft.com is a mining engineer, not a climate scientist (let alone a paleo-climatologist).

We've debunked the Geocraft nonsense a couple of times now here at YA.

Here's a good link on historical climate change and its causes:

http://www.eoearth.org/topics/view/54239/

Edit @ Tomcat:

<<http://worldview3.50webs.com/6globalwarming.html%3...

That's the source you state for your info.

Are you kidding? You are not doing your fellow science deniers here a very big favor by using and linking to the unscientific nonsense written by 'Pastor Totten', you know?

Yes.CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas which can cause global warming. It can trap the sun radiation and reflect back to earth. Its concentration level in the increased at 400ppm. The burning of fossil fuel contribute 40% of the CO2 concentration. Emission from factories, from vehicles are other sources of CO2. If its level again increased it will cause warming of earth easily. Global warming cause climate change, flooding, death of animals in pole region due to flooding etc. Only human can control the level of CO2.

"How come we had an Ice age during the ordovician period when CO2 was 4000ppm"

Ice Ages do not really exist. They are liberal tricks to raise our taxes.

Welcome to the era of post-normal science, wherein insults, ridicule, personal attacks and obscenities have replaced empirical data and logically valid arguments.

STFU is apparently part of the revised (post-normal) scientific method.

And, these people want us to believe that they are scientists.

****

The empirical answer to your question is that the geologic record indicates that CO2 forcing is insignificant as compared to other (i.e. natural) forcings.

http://climate.geologist-1011.net/