Observer
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well Ian,
I come to Automatic Earth to gain some insight into the non-mainstream voices on world affairs out there.
RIM does a good job pulling some really interesting stuff together but I’ve learnt to ignore the clickbait with respect to climate.
Mr. jb-hb seems to get hung up on CO2 ppm (which he loves continually calculating as %) and essentially ignored some patient attempts by me to give a geological account of why it’s a bit more complicated than just CO2. He (I assume he) also gets tripped up by his own logic – doesn’t seem to realize that 10 x f*uk-all (4200ppm) is still f*ck-all so a massive change in f*ck-all and at the pace it is happening is a big deal when there is plenty of evidence now to suggest that CO2, even at levels of f*ck-all is the control knob rather than the trigger. I don’t think anyone who has entered into this argument has ever mentioned earth going into run-away climate change like Venus but he tends to go there too.
Dr. D seems to have an opinion on everything and is obviously always ‘right’. I’ll give him credit in that he is 100% right with respect to the ecological catastrophe we are wreaking on the planet (of which fossil fuel and resource extraction is a major driver, irrespective of CO2). He seems to have some appreciation for the scale of geological time and the massive changes that have occurred on the planet over the course of earths history. However he gets hung up on the leading/lagging CO2 arguments and fails to look beyond the minute detail at trajectory of change with respect to glacial events and CO2. I have directed these folk to this article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915
but I guess they politely ignored it. Basically it shows that irrespective of whether CO2 leads or lags +/- 2000 years (a geological blink of the eye), an increasing CO2 trajectory is connected with warming and vice versa.
My advice to you is to accept this site for what is is – an excellent resource for non-mainstream geopolitical news and not for anything remotely supplying a helpful discourse on whether or not climate change is ‘real’ and whether or not humans have any influence. One could argue it is already a moot point – time will tell, but I reckon we’ve f*cked things up bigly and there is no turning back. The economy collapsing coupled with a with lack of geologically realistic extractable oil and other resources will probably finish a good proportion of us before climate change (as per the post today on limits-to-growth by John Day). Maybe we can hope for a Carrington event to put us out of our misery. We might even blow ourselves up. Who knows.
Take note of the more sensible voices like John Day and Phoenix Voice. And ignore the antisemitism – it’s a bit rife in the comments too – looking at you Celtic Biker.Well, JMG doesn’t deny ‘climate change’ isn’t happening nor that CO2 plays a role. He also notes that rapid changes can happen. As I’ve stated before – we are a driver of rapid change and even if we don’t know the full complexity of the earth system dynamics at play at the very least we should be following the precautionary principle. We know it’s an issue so why not cut back on FF use – it will actually do us a favor, irrespective of not having an impact on the climate trajectory because thermodynamics means eventually the energy in/out balance falls over and we will no longer have access to liquid fossil fuels (coal and gas will stick around for a while longer).
Climate change (or should we call it transition) will suck as will losing access to fossil fuels (and decent reserves of all the other resources we extract with fossil fuels). The impacts of both these factors will reinforce each other to equal a doubly suck situation.
From JMG ‘Toboggan’ piece:
Second, an equable climate may sound great in the abstract, but getting there’s not going to be so fun. To begin with, melting the polar ice caps will raise sea levels three hundred feet. While it will take centuries for this process to complete, even the first steps along that route will play merry hob with the global economy, flooding most of the world’s large cities and a vast amount of other real estate, erasing entire nations from the map, forcing mass migrations, crippling ports and other trade facilities, and the list goes on. Meanwhile the weather isn’t simply going to pop right into an equable condition; to judge from what’s currently happening, the climate belts will keep on lurching unsteadily toward the poles a little at a time, causing droughts, floods, famines, and other entertainments. A thousand years from now things may be great, but that’ll be small consolation to you, or to the generations who have to deal with the rest of the change.Some more sensible voices – thanks John Day and Pheonix Voice. I really will drop it now as there are some commentators on this site that just don’t seem to see the bigger picture (i.e. a complete waste of time giving a calm account of the geology and earth science underpinning planetary change and why the last 200 years is an anomaly – best to just shut up and get on with my day job which might actually contribute something useful to society). There seems to be conflagration of skeptical voices that seems impossible to convince to take a wider view and resort to ad hominem attacks which is ramping up on both sides and is unhealthy. Even if the impacts are only 10% of what is ‘predicted’ by the ‘models’ it’s still going to be pretty shit.
We certainly don’t know the trajectory but geological history is pretty clear.
I’m not sure where the message that increases in CO2 will kill everything on the planet came from – whether or not the planet will cease to be hospitable to homo sap’s is up for debate and certainly the survival of our current civilizational arrangements. CO2 is just one of many issues we’ve created for ourselves. I’m very sure that many forms of other life will prevail.
Short-term the economy-energy nexus will likely take homo saps down a peg or two. How the environment fears after that is anyone’s guess. My guess, mainly from an ecological perspective, is that it’s not going to be great with respect to how our species might be impacted and how we might respond and treat the habitable parts of the planet. It certainly seems things are ramping up in a negative way for many people as opposed to isolated pockets of people.
Although a scientist myself I certainly don’t ascribe to all “the science” as prescribed by the powers-that-be because they don’t seem to understand the basics of the scientific method (neither do a lot of my peers specifically if they are commercial science shills).
I’d like to think I do have a pretty good grasp on a wide range of science now that I’m working in agriculture and have taken a broader view of how global challenges are going to impact food production – hence my concerns that homo saps could be in deep do-do very soon. Irrespective of what happens in the environment, the economy crashing (due to collapsing energy security) will massively impact supply chains, which will seriously impact farmers with ‘consumers’ in quick succession. Not good for ‘conventional’ ag. nor society in general. We’ll be following organic and regenerative pathways whether ‘business’ likes it or not and localization will be the call of the day.As for the Covid ‘follow the science’ BS:
There are pretty good reasons for why mRNA vaccines never made it to stage 3 clinical trials despite being investigated for nearly 20 years as a possibility. The reasons being that they come with serious side effects. Without emergency use authorization these ‘products’ would never have been approved. Governments mandating based on the shoddy science and complete lack of transparency and complete lack of informed consent is criminal IMO. Unfortunately to continue to function and support my family I had to take the poison otherwise by-by livelihood and hello immediate poverty (and inability to prepare for the economic storm ahead). Thank goodness boosters were not mandated in my country.Definitely signing out now as measured voices and emerging theory on the trajectory of the climate story don’t seem to be welcome at TAE. I’ll go back to Observing and shut-the-f#$k-up. Thanks jb-hb and aspnaz for destroying (for me anyway) what in many ways is a great platform for hearing about real news, real issues and real events.
We are farting against thunder. We have released a beast. Let the genie out of the bottle. Stupid little humans.
Goddam – I can’t help myself.
420ppm (today) – 280ppm CO2 (preindustrial) = 140ppm
It’s actually worse than this because a proportion of the CO2 we’ve released has been taken up by the ocean – slowly acidifying it due to carbonic acid (H2O + CO2 = H2CO3).
Physics tells us that CO2 traps ‘heat’ (as per the early experiments of John Tyndall) and more contemporary calculations tell us that that 140ppm extra CO2 in the atmosphere traps about 2watts per m2 of planet surface area. Most of that extra energy is taken up by the ocean (about 90%) which is why folk on land are a little confused as to why land temps don’t seem to be going up very fast and also why they don’t think a few degrees Celsius is problematic. All that extra energy in the ocean and atmospheric systems is however problematic as it can upset important things e.g. like ocean currents.
The second law of thermodynamics is a physical law based on universal experience concerning heat and energy interconversions. One simple statement of the law is that heat always moves from hotter objects to colder objects, unless energy in some form is supplied to reverse the direction of heat flow.
Earth is colder at the poles (and as you gain elevation) which means excess heat is moving toward the poles and heating the lower atmosphere. The earths atmosphere is divided up into things called Hadley Cells and these massive parcels of air are being disrupted by the excess energy moving toward the colder parts of the planet. This is resulting in wavy jet streams which are responsible for the three simultaneous heat waves currently being experienced in the northern hemisphere – f#$king up the lives of many in other words.
The excess energy moving toward the poles is resulting in ice melting at increasing rates and allowing permafrost to warm up, activating methanogenic microorganisms (among others) and resulting in catabolism of previously locked up carbon and release of methane (another greenhouse gas). Cows have nothing on the combined might of those pesky Russian and Canadian methanogens.
A note on CO2 in the ocean – the ocean is saving our asses right now. However cold water can dissolve more CO2 than warm water, meaning at some point the ocean will stop acting as our major CO2 absorber and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will shoot up (assuming we are still here burning fossilized sunlight).
Now there is some word that the excess heat in the ocean exceeds what could be captured by that atmospheric CO2 blanket – this is a wildcard. Could be subsea volcanism.So much clickbait today that I would love to comment on but won’t cos’ it aint worth my while.
Love you guys! Nice that you are thinking of me 🙂I will comment on this from yesterday though:
“We know that we cannot maintain our lifestyles if we get rid of our reliable sources of energy. We cannot maintain the current food systems or anything invented after the 1930s without that reliable source of both energy and petroleum product. So, you are asking us to reset our standard of living so that people cannot afford transport, cannot go on holiday etc etc …. and all because you are thinking “What if we are fucking up the planet”? Are you serious, that is enough for you to wind back civilisation? A what if?”This will happen anyway irrespective of what happens with the climate. It’s called Energy return on energy invested (EROEI) and it’s coming to an energy system near you whether you like it or not.
All that inflation – EROEI
Failing health and education systems – EROEI (Well I suppose the US hasn’t had this for a while so that’s just mismanagement).
So our near future is not being able to afford transport, not being able to go on holiday struggling to afford food, struggling to ship things around the world that might be useful like fertilizer.
Bet your bottom dollar we’ll ramp up coal use as it still has a decent EROEI, hydro is up there but restricted (cos’ you know geography, climate and water and stuff). With any luck we might build a few nuclear plants. That takes care of heavy industry and electricity – pity about other entitlements like cars and holidays though. Fingers crossed we can still keep agriculture chugging along though.By the way my final sentences were rhetorical, but I guess you know that. Just in case you didn’t guess that: We are f@#king up the planet (or at least the life support systems that matter).
Wow!
All I asked for was a little civility (from all, including AFKTT). I also attempted to provide a lesson in why climate changes from a geological perspective and it just so happens that CO2 also fits into that narrative (anthropogenic or not).Now to address the following before I tap out and give up as it’s clearly not worth my time.
“You agree with him, you obviously have few analytical skills, but I understand your concern for the planet, we all live here after all. You seem to think that your concern for humanity is superior to the rest of us because you believe in AGW. Well that is simply not true. The main difference is that the people who disagree with AFKTT are not prepared to accept emotion as the reason for self-immolating our lifestyles, or those of our children. If you believe in AGW then show us the proof. If you cannot direct us to proof then it is just an emotional theory.”
I do agree with AFKTT. Climate change is just one of many impacts we are having on the planet. However our economic system (lifestyle – as you term it) is the foundational cause as it demands excessive energy and resource throughput which seems to be having increasing impacts on many levels.
Maybe I don’t have analytical skills, maybe I do, but my username suggests I like to observe – my observations over the last decades inform me that all is not well.
Not sure where you got the impression that I think my concern is superior – it is not. I’m as selfish as the next person and care about my spawn (kind of a biological thing).
Maybe not accepting emotion is part of the bigger issue here – maybe this is part of the insecurities I was talking about in my original post. It’s OK to have feelings. I’m certainly mourning for the world and it’s myriad of inhabitants as we pillage. Assuming all hell does break loose, I’ve had something to do with that as have you.
I’m pretty sure we don’t have to self immolate our lifestyles. There is a lot of stuff we can jettison without major impact on our way of life.
You don’t need to look far to find your “proof” – you just need to observe.Tapping out now – I think I’ll go back to quietly observing. Hopefully AFKTT does too then we don’t need to put up with the bullshit.
We may be wrong, we may be right but IMO the precautionary principle should reign supreme. What if all those climate scientists are right? What if we are f@#king over the planet?BTW – the earth won’t turn in Venus. It has feedback mechanisms. It might however be uninhabitable by hairless apes.
Jb-hb – nastiness induces nastiness. If you go back in time, AFKTT was quite civil until dumped on. I can see why they are pretty pissed and have been dragged down to a non-civil level as it seems to be the only level understood. Just accept that people have different opinions – Agree to disagree, but don’t sink so low.
Also note that I do give a shit about what happens on the planet mainly for selfish reasons – I worry it’s all fu#$ed up for my children and it is ignorance that is f@#king it up for them.
And we won’t be back in the jungle “naked” as you seem to think – we just need to take a chill pill on the resource and energy throughput in our economies. The estimate I’ve read is maybe 1950ish. That was a pretty good time overall – didn’t hear my grandparents nor parents complaining too much. We can keep the useful stuff and get rid of all the wasteful stuff and we’ll be on track. Easy.To all in general, but more specifically jb-hb and apsnaz.
I’ve said it before and will repeat – you guys are pretty nasty with your comments but this seems to highlight deeper insecurities. I suspect you have chosen a narrative and chose to ignore current global issues (mostly climate related and mostly affecting folk in Africa and Asia at the moment).
Please expand your education and considerations when talking about climate. You generally have no idea what you are talking about and focus on CO2 and belittling others such as myself when there are so many things that affect long term climate (and short-term weather).
AFKTT also focusses on CO2, but also seems to be aware of the ramifications of what rapid changes in CO2 might cause as opposed to long slow incremental change over geological history i.e. with respect to biophysical destruction and mass death of creatures on this planet (this time including humans). It’s happened before so will happen again.
As an earth scientist I am appalled by your ignorance of the readily available geological information that basically says:
1) long-term climate and the balance of the earth system as a whole is a global phenomenon. 2) Changes in localized climate (and resulting weather) on short-medium term horizons are often due to geological phenomenon.
Some examples:
Studies of lake sediment records close to Viking settlements in Greenland indicate that at this time the temperature in Greenland was similar to today (about 10 degrees Celsius). Changes in carbon dioxide was not the culprit, instead it was more likely a difference in the path of warm ocean currents.
The little ice age was also not due to carbon dioxide, instead it was most likely the result of volcanic eruptions elsewhere on the planet blocking solar insolation resulting in a cold period of about 6-8 years.
Generally speaking, changes in Earth’s orbit and tilt results in changes in the distribution of heat derived from the sun around the planet – this is the climate change switch. CO2 is the thermostat which defines how warm or cold it will get. Changes in CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are controlled by geological and biological processes.
Imagine a world with no-humans and let us focus on CO2 – yes I know, reductionist approach but we have to start somewhere.
Historical changes in CO2 were predominantly derived from: erosion (slow CO2 uptake into the likes of CaCO3 and other minerals = cooling), eruptions (fast CO2 release = warming). Biological processes plug into that and change the mass balance of carbon in the atmosphere to varying degrees e.g. uptake and storage via various ‘carbon pumps’ on land (soil) and ocean (sediments) = lower CO2 on balance, while mass death of plants and other organisms and things like wildfires = release of CO2 on balance. The interconnections between all the systems on the planet via the atmosphere and the ocean currents muddy everything up but the trend that emerges is clear – CO2 goes up planetwide, temperature goes up, CO2 goes down planetwide – temperature goes down. Sometimes CO2 is ahead of the curve and sometime behind the curve but that depends on where the measurements are taken within the geological record relative to the other changes occurring on the planet at the time.
Now imagine a world with some hairless apes who stumble upon oil gas and coal and have a massive 200-year party. What we have done is essentially the same as a massive volcanic eruption over the course of 200 years (which is a blink in the eye with respect to geological time). That’s gonna have consequences. How fast, we don’t know but it seems to be speeding up.There are unknowns. For example, current exceptionally warm oceans could be the result of subsea volcanism loading the deep ocean with heat and screwing up things like the Southern oscillation (La Nian/El Nino) but because we don’t measure things like subsea volcanism folk are dumfounded.
BTW: minimum level of CO2 for plants is somewhere between 50 and 170ppm. This is plant species dependent.
Heatwaves at the moment in multiple continents is due to more wavy jet-streams trapping high pressure systems, which is due to changing heat loading between the equatorial and polar regions – which at this point is most likely due to rapid buildup of CO2 across the last 200 years (as CO2 traps heat as per physicist John Tyndall). Heatwaves and drought in general are exacerbated by the fact we’ve chopped down forests and have abstracted shit-tons of water for agriculture and impacted soil health and structure, such that we now have a deficit of water in important growing regions which then results in low biomass growth and little/no offsetting of heat (look at temperature of bare soil versus planted).
Basically, humans are capable of planet-wide impacts and fossil fuels have allowed us to achieve that.I too am getting a bit annoyed by TAE posting complete and utter nonsense with respect to our current crazy planetary climate situation. I come to this site to get an alternative view on legacy media “news.”
Ian Pilmer does not deserve the title “Professor” as he clearly doesn’t know how to research a topic in a methodical way nor does he present a balanced view of the situation. Seems to me he’s just wanting some airtime. Utter fool.
In defense of AFKTT, please watch:
I think a little more research is needed from the likes of aspnaz. All skeptism related to “anthropogenic climate change is a hoax” is based on cherry picking data. Broaden your minds people and take in the bigger picture.
“Unsubstantiated nonsense” is an apt description. Well done AFKTT!John Day – That ethical skeptic article is probably the best thought out theory I’ve seen combining the role of geological heat in combination with excess heat load from anthropogenic activities in our overall conundrum – definitely worth following up on (although as a scientist myself I don’t rate the chances of anyone getting funding for it – there is a standing joke that science advances with every old scientists obituary). There is a bit of stuff in the literature on sub-sea vulcanism in and around the Antarctic Peninsula (if I remember correctly) and higher ice melt rates below the massive glaciers terminating in the ocean there. I always thought that if that is the case in that one small zone then there is no reason why it couldn’t be happening elsewhere and adding to the heat load of the planet. As the author points out this is additional heating on top of that induced by the excess approx. 4ppm CO2 misbalance/increase per year via human activity in photosynthetic uptake versus production.
Being a microbiologist, my posit would be that the excess CO2 derived from human activity has increased the planets energy imbalance enough (possibly toward a tipping point) that this extra (heat) energy has resulted not only in methane release from the arctic but also increased the rate of methanotrophy where microbes in the surface sediments are now metabolically more active and are consuming a proportion of the additional methane from tundra soils and adding further CO2 loading to the atmosphere (those tundra soils are a smoking gun – methane derived from agriculture pales in comparison so targeting farmers is non-sensical IMO. Water pollution derived from agriculture and industry is by far the bigger concern). Microbes have enormous capacity to really F things up for us and are certainly uncontrolable. When we are gone, life will certainly continue, just not as we know it!
Also we shouldn’t forget that the ocean is not only a heat sink but a CO2 sink – more CO2 can be dissolved in cold water, so the capacity of the ocean to act as a CO2 sink will be slowly decreasing with time as it warms. With such a massive volume of water on the planet, any miniscule change in the capacity of the ocean to soak up CO2 would be huge on the scale of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Back to the artic region – geological history links massive vulcanism there (Siberian traps) to prior climate change via CO2 release (and no doubt other gases like SO2) into the atmosphere (and mass extinction). If mantle convection leads to differing subsurface heat loading and this happens to be under the artic and is contributing to increasing the rates of methane release and microbiological activity.
In the words of a colleague – we are farting against thunder.The correspondence associated with this article is of more interest. My immediate thought was: “Interesting – I wonder if they accounted for the exchange of CO2 with the oceans (and biosphere) given the oceans act as a sink for atmospheric CO2 (approx. 25% – which leads to ocean acidification) which would mess with the atmospheric signal and there is loss of carbon to ocean sediments via the ocean carbon pump” – turns out they didn’t. The correspondence expands on this initial thought and brings in further considerations that the authors of this paper ignored suggesting that this work is erroneous. See: https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Citation/2022/06000/Comment_on__World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C.13.aspx Turns out things like atomic testing messes bigly with 14C-CO2 data – every day is a school day.
Another correspondent basically says this paper was clearly not reviewed by anyone who has a systems knowledge of CO2 flux in the real world.I don’t think anyone wishes to see mass human suffering – but what if it happens? Realistically, there is not much we can do about it if mother nature is in control – it is the nature of life that there is death. What death looks like is entirely up to us. We can try to minimize the impact but we shouldn’t deny that we are in trouble and we should acknowledge that our psychology seems to prevent us from working together. We can theoretically already feed and provide resources for the projected 10-11 billion souls predicted as our peak population, but we certainly can’t do it if we (as a species) carry on as we are with our waste and disregard for our environment. We are geologically and energetically constrained. Climate change or no climate change, that is a problem.
I don’t think anyone wishes to see mass human suffering – but what if it happens? Realistically, there is not much we can do about it if mother nature is in control – it is the nature of life that there is death. What death looks like is entirely up to us. We can try to minimize the impact but we shouldn’t deny that we are in trouble and we should acknowledge that our psychology seems to prevent us from working together. We can theoretically already feed and provide resources for the projected 10-11 billion souls predicted as our peak population, but we certainly can’t do it if we (as a species) carry on as we are with our waste and disregard for our environment. We are geologically and energetically constrained. Climate change or no climate change, that is a problem.
Obviously I expect the same from AFKTT and all commenters. Just because we are all anonymous doesn’t mean we can’t be civil. Tone is important – you can express an opinion but please don’t be so arrogant (read: nasty) about it. There was actually nothing wrong with AFKTT math – he (I assume he) was calculating the year on year changes of one atmospheric gas relative to the units it was expressed in – there has been approx. 5ppm change year on year, which compared to last year is about 1.2%.
Your calculations are equally valid from your perception of the problem. You could have expressed your view as an alternative way to examine the math rather than point blank saying AFKTT is wrong (and implying he is an idiot).
Please accept that AFKTT thinks that climate change (and ecological overshoot in general) is a problem and hopefully AFKTT accepts that you don’t think it is an issue. Have a rant, express your viewpoint but please don’t let it get nasty.
As a geologist/ecologist, I myself think that climate warming (brought about by ecological overshoot, where CO2 is an exhaust gas of our exorbitant energy consumption) is a problem – Ecological overshoot is documented across all realms of natural science literature. Climate tunnel vision is a real problem and governments will solve nothing without looking at the bigger picture.
Some personal observations of ecological overshoot and climate warming from NZ (Airstrip 5 in AFKTT language): When all the glaciers that I visited just 20 years ago have either melted or now have massive terminal lakes in front of them, and one can now now longer hike on the lateral moraines as there is no ice to support them properly then something is wrong. When species of warm-water tropical fish are regularly caught south of the subtropical convergence zone then something is wrong. When approx. 90% of seabird species are now threatened because their young can’t dive deep enough to reach food sources that would normally be in cold surface waters because those waters are now warm, then something is wrong. When rates or erosion and runoff are so high that seagrass species and entire ecosystems that depend on that seagrass are wiped out because of siltation rates that are too high then some thing is wrong. When plant fungal diseases are endemic and spreading to previously safe areas because the ‘weather’ is now warmer and moister then something is wrong.
There are many sentinels to suggest that substantial change is afoot – a lot of these sentinels live in or by the ocean. The oceans are adsorbing 90% of the excess energy imbalance derived from changing atmospheric chemistry (this will be in addition to unknown heat load from subsea volcanism which fluctuates). This is not to say that it hasn’t happened in the past (the geological record asserts this) but as mentioned previously it’s the rate of change that is of most concern. I’m pretty sure that humans are the factor that has upset the balance and increased the pace far more than e.g. volcanic eruptions from the past and changes in sun cycles. Entire ecosystems are in trouble and humans are not islands – climate change might not kill us but general ecological overshoot very well could with climate change being a large contributing factor.
With respect, my two cents.jb-hb – You seem like a knowledgeable chap but you are also pretty nasty. Given the increase in extreme weather events I’d suggest you hold your tongue, comment in productive ways and let other express themselves as well. Everyone has an opinion and should be able to express that opinion without derision from others.
Red is right, as is Kultsommor – we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Decarbonisation leads to catastrophic consequences in terms of pollution and loss of aerosol masking bringing climate into focus for a different reason.
AFKTT is right. That graph is terrible as it fails to account for so many other events throughout earths long history. Note that it is well known that there is considerable uncertainty in the proxies used to generate historical representations of past atmosphere and conditions.
With regards to climate, it is all about the rate of change – which with respect to our emissions is not quite unprecedented. The current rate of release of climate forcing gases is similar to that of 200 million years ago after a series of massive volcanic eruptions and an asteroid impact. These events triggered a mass extinction at a time when temperatures and CO2 were far higher than today but there was also ocean acidification and anoxia (leading to mass death of swaths of different organisms at that time). However, at the same time there was also massive release of sulphate and other aerosols which have an opposite radiative forcing to CO2 thus adding further uncertainty and error to the long term representation of the relationship between CO2 and energy imbalance.
With regard to temperature AFKTT is also correct. It is almost pointless looking at changes in current air temperature when approx. 90% of the energy imbalance is absorbed by the oceans. Connected to this is the fact that warm water can hold less CO2 – therefore it is valid to ask at what point does the biggest CO2 sink on the planet switch to net CO2 release and what could the implications of that be?
Geological history has massive influence on the planets climate e.g. the shifting of continents results in shifting ocean currents and differing heat distribution across the planet – again not represented in that graph.
In summary, the climate situation is way more complex than presenting a graph on the supposed non-relationship between CO2 and temperature.
Don’t forget also that climate change is just one symptom of ecological overshoot. There are many other crises in the world that could lead to our demise as the dominant organisms on the planet: Resource depletion, Energy shortages, Soil depletion, Biodiversity loss, Microplastic contamination, Chemical pollution, Nutrient run-off, Ocean acidification, Water shortages, Famine, Antibiotic resistance, Pandemics, War, Weapons of mass destruction, Governance failure, Infrastructure collapse, Natural disasters, Migration waves, Cyber-attacks, AI consequences.
