Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are at about 400 parts per million (ppm). Local concentrations may be above or below this number but that is a good average. NASA says that is the highest level on record.
In the last 150 years, global average temperatures have gone up an estimated 0.85 °C.
Now, let's talk about these and other facts and what is not being told to you.
Let's start with those carbon dioxide levels. If you look at the NASA chart of global CO2 levels which goes back about 400,000 years, it shows that CO2 levels peaked at about 300 ppm. So it sounds like we are about 100 ppm higher than the past.
Not so fast. If you think about 400,000 years it sounds like a really long time. Let's look at another number. Scientists estimate that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Written out it looks like 4,500,000,000. There are 11,250 periods of 400,000 years in the age of the earth and nearly all of that time the earth had some kind of atmosphere.
If you look at the NASA data over the last 400,000 years there is another thing that is instantly noticeable in their graph. There is a very distinct and undeniable 100,000 year cycle of CO2 levels. They go up relatively quickly at the beginning of the cycle by about 120 to 150 ppm and then go down very slowly back to a much lower level. This pattern is so obvious, my kindergartener can see it.
Scientists also say that in the earliest past of the earth, there was very little oxygen and that it slowly accumulated over time. Some speculate this could have taken about 2 billion years. So what does the geologic record say about CO2 levels in the earth's past where there was abundant life?
About 500 million years ago in the Cambrian period, CO2 levels were about 7,000 ppm. That is not a typo. That is the estimated number by the GEOCARB III estimates. Spring forward about 100 million years to the Devonian period (about 400 million years ago) and levels had dropped to between 3,000 and 4,000 ppm. Spring forward again to the Jurassic period about 150 million to 200 million years ago and the CO2 levels dropped further to be between 1,500 and 2,500 ppm.
And what are the CO2 levels today? About 400 ppm.
Now let us turn our attention to that temperature increase and let's start with the temperatures from the deep past. The average global temperature during the Cambrian Period was estimated at about 21 °C (70 °F), during the Devonian Period the estimate is 20 °C (68 °F), and during the Jurassic Period the estimate is 16.5 °C (62 °F).
What is the current average global surface temperature? About 14 °C (57 °F).
What is so important about the Cambrian Period? The Cambrian Period is when an event occurred that scientists call "the Cambrian explosion." Let's talk about that. I'll quote Wikipedia because they have the clearest description.
"The Cambrian explosion, or less commonly Cambrian radiation, was the relatively short evolutionary event, beginning around 542 million years ago in the Cambrian Period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record. Lasting for about the next 20–25 million years, it resulted in the divergence of most modern metazoan phyla. Additionally, the event was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Prior to the Cambrian explosion, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 to 80 million years, the rate of diversification accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today. Many of the present phyla appeared during this period, with the exception of Bryozoa, which made its earliest known appearance in the Lower Ordovician."
Allow me to translate: During a time when the earth was 7 °C hotter than it is now (that's about 45 °F hotter), and CO2 levels were 17 times higher than they are now, the earth had the largest increase in life and life diversity it had ever seen before and since.
So why is it important that the global temperature estimates being tossed around in the media now only go back about 150 years? During the Medieval Warm period which started around the year 900 and lasted until about 1300, the northern hemisphere of the earth underwent a warming period that was most likely linked to a global warming period but records are not clear to what extent.
Following that warm period, there was a lull in the temperature that resulted in what scientists termed the "little ice age" which lasted from about the year 1550 to about 1850. During that time, global temperatures dropped about 1 to 2 °C (2 to 4 °F) below the 1,000 year averages of that time. This cooling effect has been seen to be repeatable.
In the North Atlantic, sediments accumulated since the end of the last ice age, nearly 12,000 years ago, show regular increases in the amount of coarse sediment grains deposited from icebergs melting in the now open ocean, indicating a series of 1 to 2 °C (2 to 4 °F) cooling events recurring every 1,500 years or so. The most recent of these cooling events was the Little Ice Age. These same cooling events are detected in sediments accumulating off Africa, but the cooling events appear to be larger, ranging between 3 to 8 °C (6 to 14 °F).
So by 1850, the global temperature was about anywhere from 1 to 8 °C cooler than the 1,000 year average for the planet at that time. Let's just use the more conservative of the estimates and call it 1.5 °C cooler by 1850 than it should have been.
Remember that global temperature increase I quoted as fact up above? If you accept that there has been a 0.85 °C temperature increase since 1850, then when compared to the 1,000 year average, we are still 1.5 - 0.85 = 0.65 °C cooler as a planet.
Got that? When you compare the current temperatures to the temperatures from about 150 years ago, the end of the "little ice age" it looks like an increase while in reality it is just the planet returning to its earlier average temperatures.
Now let's talk about the human induced elements of the equation.
It has been said that human industrialization has caused catastrophic climate effects. I disagree. In fact, I think human industrialization has had hardly any effect overall when compared to the planet climate as a whole.
What is their evidence? Rise in CO2 levels correspond to rise in industrialization. Rise in temperatures correspond to rise in industrialization.
Think carefully for a moment. In general, humans did not have significant advances in society, culture, or science during periods of great stresses when just surviving topped the priorities. Sure, necessity was the mother of invention, but sweeping changes in human development do not occur until there is either a stress so significant a change is forced or there is sufficient free time to create a change not borne of the need to survive.
Therefore, it is no coincidence that industry and populations grew rapidly during a period of relative warmth. With warmer temperatures and higher levels of CO2, food was abundant. Life was easier. People had time to consider options.
During the past there were two such warming periods that saw surges in human developments. The Roman empire erupted onto the world and rapidly expanded during the warming period known as the Roman Climate Optimum. Later, during the Medieval Warm period, there was an expansion in Europe that resulted in a huge number of castles and cathedrals that were constructed as a result of prosperous times. In South America, the Mayans rose to dominance during this time as well.
The Romans pushed the bounds of engineering during their reign. The Europeans developed impressive techniques to build their cathedrals and castles while the Mayans built similar impressive structures in some of the most hard to reach peaks in South America.
Then the little ice age came and things kind of went downhill both in Europe and in South America. The Europeans suffered famines, disease, and a general collapse of civilization. The Mayans dwindled until they were mostly wiped out by the Spanish. And technological progress was brought to an abrupt halt. Even the Renaissance, which started while temperatures were still warmer, fizzled by the 1600s as life became more difficult.
When things started warming up again in the mid 1800s, humans began industrializing. The warming was not a result of the industrialization. The industrialization was a result of the warming. That is simply how things worked for the historical past of humans. Technological advances came after issues of surviving were well in hand.
When things started warming up again in the mid 1800s, humans began industrializing. The warming was not a result of the industrialization. The industrialization was a result of the warming. That is simply how things worked for the historical past of humans. Technological advances came after issues of surviving were well in hand.
Warmer temperatures resulted in increased human activity. That linear connection is part of the geologic record and an indisputable fact.
And now, for the last 2 million years or so, the earth has seen deep ice ages and its climate has been dominated by cyclical patterns of warming and cooling. These cycles are readily seen in the geologic record and now are known to coincide with cycles in solar activity as well. We do not stand at the brink of a catastrophic global warming period. We stand in a brief lull between ice ages. Ultimately, we will see another ice age come.
It is not a matter of "if" we enter a new ice age. It is simply a matter of when.
I reject your man-made global warming and substitute it with solid facts, backed by mountains of geologic data, accumulated over centuries and not polluted with "temperature adjustments" as has been the case with the raw temperature data from numerous sources in support of their myth.
There is no man-made global warming.
