2015 Was the Hottest Year on Record, by a Stunning Margin

[ok doser]

 

[OCTOBER23]

My wife lost a lot of weight during 2015 and she sure is HOT !!!:thumb:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Tis time to school the teacher.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=124

 

[This Charming Manc]

willful ignorance!

even you lot are not stupid enough to actually believe 1/2 of your arguments?

 

[Alate_One]

Then why do we need exogenous CO2 sometimes?

Uhh we don't?

That implies the alveoli transport exogenous CO2 into the blood stream, doesn't it? Or are you suggesting holding a bag over your face prevent the alveoli from eliminating waste CO2?

Mostly the latter. You seem to fail to understand chemistry. The air is considerably lower in CO2 than human breath. If you exhale too deeply and too frequently you mix too much atmospheric air (which is comparatively low in CO2) with the exhaled air. This lowers the CO2 concentration in the lungs, causing alkalosis due to hypocapnia. The alveoli and the blood vessels surrounding them are in equilibrium with the gases inside the lungs.

Breathing into a bag keeps the CO2 you produce from escaping into the atmosphere, instead you breathe it back in, maintaining the appropriate CO2 levels. There's nothing "exogenous" about it. You made it . . .

Still, hypocapnia occurs, and it can be corrected therapeutically by increasing exogenous CO2. Go figure.

It's usually corrected by breathing into a bag.

You could add exogenous CO2 if you wanted, but humans produce plenty.

Give me a citation that proves humans require no exogenous CO2 to survive since that's what you are implying. What I believe appears self-evident.

You can believe whatever you want.
But high CO2 levels rapidly trigger negative side effects.

If CO2 other than that produced in the body were needed, Oxygen re-breathers would kill people.

Astronauts of the Apollo and Gemini programs breathed pure oxygen for several weeks. Problem with it was it's flammability not breatheability. Modern space programs use a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen. There's no mention of them bothering to add the 0.4% CO2 found in the atmosphere on earth.

What they do have to do, is scrub the CO2 out because it becomes toxic rather quickly.

The effect of elevated atmospheric CO2 on the vitamin C concentration of (sour) orange juice

In what appears to be an approach to long-term equilibrium conditions, five of the last 6 years have seen the CO2-induced increase in the number of fruit produced hover at 74+/-9%, while the CO2-induced increase in fruit fresh weight has averaged 4+/-2% and the CO2-induced increase in juice vitamin C concentration has averaged 5 +/- 1%.

You found one study and the effect is minimal, plus they only increased CO2, they weren't concerned with the other effects of climate change.

How high was it while plants were still thriving?

High CO2 isn't going to kill plants, that's not the problem with current anthropogenic climate change. The problem is the temperature change increasing temperatures rapidly and extreme events like droughts, floods and storms.

I don't see you having any leg to stand on arguing increased CO2 has any benefit for humans physiologically.

The only thing increased CO2 can do in some situations is increase plant growth. But it is killing many species in the ocean due to ocean acidification - which is a similar issue to CO2 concentration in human blood. High CO2 in the atmosphere is dissolving in the ocean and lowering pH.

 

[brewmama]

No, it isn't. CO2 is not "high" at all, and the oceans are not "acidifying" they are slightly less alkaline, perhaps, and it isn't killing off any species. You didn't get anything right.

 

[Alate_One]

No, it isn't. CO2 is not "high" at all, and the oceans are not "acidifying" they are slightly less alkaline, perhaps, and it isn't killing off any species. You didn't get anything right.

CO2 is high compared to what it has been for thousands of years. Less Alkaline = Acidifying. It's the same thing. CO2 creates carbonic acid when dissolved in water. Corals all over the world are bleaching and many species that form hard shells are having difficulty forming them. It's already impacted mussel farming in the northwest. They have to adjust the pH of their water because regular ocean water's pH is too low. It hasn't caused extinctions, yet but as the pH drops it's bound to happen.


It's you who didn't get anything right.

 

[elohiym]

If you exhale too deeply and too frequently you mix too much atmospheric air (which is comparatively low in CO2) with the exhaled air.

That mixture you're describing is outside your lungs.

This lowers the CO2 concentration in the lungs, causing alkalosis due to hypocapnia.

Would you agree that the higher the concentration of atmospheric CO2, the harder it is for your body to get rid of CO2?

Breathing into a bag keeps the CO2 you produce from escaping into the atmosphere, instead you breathe it back in, maintaining the appropriate CO2 levels. There's nothing "exogenous" about it.

The CO2 escapes into the atmosphere of the bag that allows atmospheric CO2 levels in that bag to increase making it harder for your body to get rid of CO2.

But high CO2 levels rapidly trigger negative side effects.

Above you were explaining the negative side effect of low atmospheric CO2 as it relates to deep exhalation.

If CO2 other than that produced in the body were needed, Oxygen re-breathers would kill people.

Astronauts of the Apollo and Gemini programs breathed pure oxygen for several weeks. Problem with it was it's flammability not breatheability. Modern space programs use a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen. There's no mention of them bothering to add the 0.4% CO2 found in the atmosphere on earth.

What they do have to do, is scrub the CO2 out because it becomes toxic rather quickly.

You are describing closed systems that don't eliminate all the CO2, right?

You found one study ...

I posted a link to a study that supports my claim that increased CO2 increases the nutritional value in some fruits.

High CO2 isn't going to kill plants....

It potentially will cause them to thrive, right?

I don't see you having any leg to stand on arguing increased CO2 has any benefit for humans physiologically.

I've already proved it increased vitamin C levels in oranges, and that translates to a benefit for human health. If you agree that the higher the concentration of atmospheric CO2, the harder it is for your body to get rid of CO2, then it follows that exogenous CO2 has some therapeutic benefit when deep exhalation causes hyperventilation.

 

[Alate_One]

That mixture you're describing is outside your lungs.

Nope. Did you think you got 100% evacuation when you exhale? :chuckle:

The CO2 escapes into the atmosphere of the bag that allows atmospheric CO2 levels in that bag to increase making it harder for your body to get rid of CO2.

It just increases the concentration in the bag over time. Think of gases like a fluid.

You are describing closed systems that don't eliminate all the CO2, right?

Yes. But all the CO2 in those systems is being put there by the humans breathing.

It potentially will cause them to thrive, right?

It can help in some cases, but certainly not all.

Corn for example (maize) will not respond to increased CO2 since it is a C4 plant. And it is one of our most productive crops currently.

High temperatures and low rainfall however are devastating to plants. See California.

Unlike CO2 levels, there are temperatures where many species of plants can't survive.

I've already proved it increased vitamin C levels in oranges, and that translates to a benefit for human health.

You found one study.

If you agree that the higher the concentration of atmospheric CO2, the harder it is for your body to get rid of CO2, then it follows that exogenous CO2 has some therapeutic benefit when deep exhalation causes hyperventilation.

Huh? You're making no sense at all. Higher concentrations of co2 makes it harder for the body to get rid of CO2, that's a BAD thing. CO2 is toxic at high levels.

 

[rexlunae]

The anthropogenic climate change theory whom many on this board believe to be a vast conspiracy.

You know what's going to happen, don't you? It's going to be 1997 all over again. 2015 is going to be the hottest year for another decade or so, and so we're going to hear all the cranks telling us that there's "no warming measured" since 2015. Until the next El Niño...when there's going to be another all-time hottest year, and they aren't going to want to go back and recognize that both the El Niño and non-El Niño years are getting hotter.

Just watch. The only way of avoiding it is if this year is hotter than 2015.

 

[zoo22]

You know what's going to happen, don't you? It's going to be 1997 all over again. 2015 is going to be the hottest year for another decade or so, and so we're going to hear all the cranks telling us that there's "no warming measured" since 2015. Until the next El Niño...when there's going to be another all-time hottest year, and they aren't going to want to go back and recognize that both the El Niño and non-El Niño years are getting hotter.

Just watch. The only way of avoiding it is if this year is hotter than 2015.

What do you mean, as aCW, TOL's resident climatahomosexuoligist showed, there was a BLIZZARD on the east coast last week. Therefore: GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX. Blizzard proves it, poindexter. Case closed! Game, set, match!

 

[rexlunae]

What do you mean, as aCW, TOL's resident climatahomosexuoligist showed, there was a BLIZZARD on the east coast last week. Therefore: GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX. Blizzard proves it, poindexter. Case closed! Game, set, match!

Exactly. 2016 is already colder than 2015. Global Warming is over!

 

[Stripe]

The debate isn't over average temperatures increasing. That might well be happening at a detectable level. It is certainly happening at a background level.

 

[elohiym]

Nope. Did you think you got 100% evacuation when you exhale? :chuckle:

Irrelevant to my point. Exhaled CO2 is necessarily outside the body based on the definition of exhalation; hence my point about your claim.

The CO2 escapes into the atmosphere of the bag that allows atmospheric CO2 levels in that bag to increase making it harder for your body to get rid of CO2.

It just increases the concentration in the bag over time.

It also causes hypercapnia.

Yes. But all the CO2 in those systems is being put there by the humans breathing.

My point is it's not an example of humans breathing in an atmosphere devoid of CO2.

You found one study.

Yes, one study that proves what I claimed. Your point?

If you agree that the higher the concentration of atmospheric CO2, the harder it is for your body to get rid of CO2, then it follows that exogenous CO2 has some therapeutic benefit when deep exhalation causes hyperventilation.

Huh? You're making no sense at all.

Making it harder for your body to get rid of CO2 is what stops the hyperventilation. It's using an increased CO2 in the atmosphere (the bag) therapeutically.

Higher concentrations of co2 makes it harder for the body to get rid of CO2...

Yes, we agree on that.

...that's a BAD thing. CO2 is toxic at high levels.

Here's where we are not seeing eye-to-eye. I'm not denying a biphasic dose response to increasing CO2 levels, only trying to point out that higher levels than current levels can be beneficial to human health. It's a silver lining to increasing levels, at least.

 

[elohiym]

ADVANTAGES OF INCREASED CARBON DIOXIDE

The potential advantages of increased carbon dioxide (hypercapnia) in the modified gaseous environment also merit discussion. Physiological hypercapnia is associated with a number of positive biological and therapeutic effects, such as increase in the cerebral and myocardial blood flow, acceleration of oxyhemoglobin dissociation in the capillaries and enhancement of blood perfusion in functionally active organs (19). There is abundant evidence of enhanced capillary growth, increased collateral blood vessels development under intermittent hypercapnia applications. Naturopathic medicine and balneotherapy since long time successfully explore different protocols of increased CO2 application to produce curative effects.

It is well proven that moderate hypercapnia provides protective effect in severe hypoxia. The direct protective action of carbon dioxide against hypoxic injury during bypass operations was reported (20). Protection of blood coagulation homeostasis in severe hypoxia by carbon dioxide was shown (21). CNS tolerance to hypoxia can be increased promptly and sufficiently by purposeful elevation of inspired carbon dioxide partial pressure (22). Protective effect of increased CO2 on calcium metabolism in immobilization osteoporosis was demonstrated (23).

It was shown recently, that carbon dioxide provide direct antioxidative action, suppressing concentration - proportionally the production of superoxide-anion radicals in the mitochondria, and neutralizing the other highly - aggressive free radical peroxynitrit (24, 25, 26,).

Actually CO2 in proper concentration plays in the body the role of an abundant, easy available and fast acting antioxidant, which protects from depletion the other, slower functioning components of antioxidant network system of the body under condition of oxidative stress (27, 28, 29). The review of physiological effects of moderately elevated CO2 levels presented in a joint NASA – ESA -- DARA study (30).​

 

[elohiym]

Well, unless you live near a current sea shore.

Still not sure what your point is but I remind you that in 2004 more than 230,000 people lost their lives in the Boxing Day tsunami that wasn't caused by increasing CO2 levels.

 

[rexlunae]

The debate isn't over average temperatures increasing.

You've never heard anyone claim that there's "no net warming" for the last sixteen, seventeen, or eighteen years? Strange. I hear that a lot. Presumably until this year, I would imagine. They understand El Niño during the year that it's occurring, but not any of the subsequent years.

Well, I'm glad to learn that you at least recognize the warming trend.

 

[Stripe]

You've never heard anyone claim that there's "no net warming" for the last sixteen, seventeen, or eighteen years?

And you're free to argue with them.

However, even if you win that debate, you've ignored the real issue, which is the assertion that this is due to a specific modern-day set of human activities.

Strange. I hear that a lot.

It's because you're automatically drawn to things that will extend the debate, rather than seeking out the issues that will clarify necessary conditions that might be used to establish policy. You will blindly endorse the "statu quo" because it suits your agenda; you won't consider a scientific approach, let alone a rational one.

The next quote shows this Darwinist tendency exactly:

Well, I'm glad to learn that you at least recognize the warming trend.

I recognized no such thing. That you would say this shows either:
a) You're a sloppy reader with no ability to comprehend statements, or
b) You're a liar, seeking solely to protect an agenda.

Either way, you've just ruled yourself out of being able to contribute anything of value to this conversation. :wave2:

 

[brewmama]

CO2 is high compared to what it has been for thousands of years. Less Alkaline = Acidifying. It's the same thing. CO2 creates carbonic acid when dissolved in water.

No it isn't, it's called neutralizing, which any honest person with a modicum of chemistry knowledge would say. "Acidifying" is a scarier word that those who participate in scare tactics, including you apparently, love to use. And CO2 levels have certainly been higher, in fact many geologists laugh at the suggestion that CO2 is approaching dangerous levels.

Corals all over the world are bleaching and many species that form hard shells are having difficulty forming them. It's already impacted mussel farming in the northwest. They have to adjust the pH of their water because regular ocean water's pH is too low. It hasn't caused extinctions, yet but as the pH drops it's bound to happen.

And yet research show that
a: Sunscreen kills coral reefs http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/...und-in-sunscreen-is-poisonous-to-coral-reefs/
b:La Nina conditions are much worse for coral.

"A new study has found that La Niña-like conditions in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Panamá were closely associated with an abrupt shutdown in coral reef growth that lasted 2,500 years. The study suggests that future changes in climate similar to those in the study could cause coral reefs to collapse in the future.

The study found cooler sea temperatures, greater precipitation and stronger upwelling — all indicators of La Niña-like conditions at the study site in Panama — during a period when coral reef accretion stopped in this region around 4,100 years ago. For the study, researchers traveled to Panama to collect a reef core, and then used the corals within the core to reconstruct what the environment was like as far back as 6,750 years ago." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/...-4100-years-ago-and-lasted-over-two-millenia/

and c: Coral reefs are proving to be resistant to both warming and lower pH.

And you admit that "But it is killing many species in the ocean due to ocean acidification - which is a similar issue to CO2 concentration in human blood."

was at best an exaggeration and at worse a bald-faced lie. It's all projected, and they've been pretty much wrong about everything else. The planet was supposed to be dead at this point, remember?

It's you who didn't get anything right.

So no, once again you're wrong.

 

[rexlunae]

And you're free to argue with them.

However, even if you win that debate, you've ignored the real issue, which is the assertion that this is due to a specific modern-day set of human activities.

Except that I haven't ignored it. I haven't focused on it in this thread, which is about the measured warming trend predicted by climate science. But, of course, it's uncomfortable for science denialists to get into the details, because they box them in.

I actually had my own global warming thread a couple of years back, where I covered the broader evidence for global warming, not exhaustively, but I felt with enough detail to make the basic case. It was one of the more productive threads I've seen on TOL, if I do say so myself.

It's because you're automatically drawn to things that will extend the debate, rather than seeking out the issues that will clarify necessary conditions that might be used to establish policy. You will blindly endorse the "statu quo" because it suits your agenda; you won't consider a scientific approach, let alone a rational one.

I love a good debate, that's for sure. But I'd be quite happy to see more people here actually recognize legitimate science rather than trying to concoct an excuse for ignoring it.

The next quote shows this Darwinist tendency exactly:
I recognized no such thing. That you would say this shows either:
a) You're a sloppy reader with no ability to comprehend statements, or
b) You're a liar, seeking solely to protect an agenda.

There were two logically possible options. Either you recognize the warming trend that's continued for the past several decades, or you don't. It's the excluded middle. You have to fall to one side of it or the other, if only be default.