CO2 ppm, sun and climate variability

[Woof woof]

The impacts probably increased the number of eruptions which delayed the resumption of global warming! It's almost CQFD, at my level.

Temporal orders of magnitude of the effect of a meteorite or volcanism are not sufficient to explain a climatic shift over thousands of years.
The order of magnitude of the influence of these causes is the year, even a few decades. It depends on the importance of the phenomenon.
The Siberian Traps was 250 million years ago and there has been no recent equivalent, even on a smaller scale.
Consequently, if meteorite plus volcanism there was, it could not have affected the climate throughout the Holocene.

The relative stability of the Holocene is explained by a low rate of change in the Earth's orbit, the low solar activity during this period, the vegetation cover, the albedo of land surfaces and the circulation of the oceans.

In contrast, current climate change caused by human activities is occurring at a much faster rate than any climate change observed in Earth's recent history.

[izentrop]

Hello,
Woof-woof it's good to give the source.
Here is one well explained by Yves Dandonneau
Research Director at the Dynamic Oceanography and Climatology Laboratory of the Research Institute for Development
It's a little dated but still valid. https://argonautes.club/quelle-est-la-c ... nnees.html

[pacien-]

Thanks izentrop for the info on the glaciation/orbit relationship.
1: the ellipticity is not particularly weak, it is average.
2: if the combination of orbital parameters could cause a sudden change in the climate, we would necessarily see it in the earlier deglaciation phases (more stable).
3: but it is true that we can see a slow oscillation on the curve, with a frequency incompatible with the opinion of woof-woof.

“According to him, by falling this meteorite would have caused such an earthquake that it would have awakened volcanoes, until then dormant, all over the world and in particular in India.
For this, he and his team rely on new, more precise dating of lava flows in the Deccan region at that time. These show that they doubled in size in the 50.000 years following the fall of the meteorite.
“Based on our dating of the Deccan lavas, we can be fairly certain that this resurgence of volcanic activity, the meteorite impact and the extinction occurred within the same 50.000-year time frame,” says Paul. Reindeer"
It would be good to visit the links before commenting!
https://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/france-monde/extinction-des-dinosaures-volcans-ou-meteorite-sans-doute-un-peu-des-deux

Since there was an impact at that time, the easiest way to check if there was an effect on volcanism is to check (again) on a list of volcanism.
https://forums.infoclimat.fr/f/topic/35501-volcanisme-et-climat/

Everything has an end obamot, even if we don't know what!

[Obamot]

I'm not knowledgeable enough to talk about it, but the Milankovitch parameters fluctuate over 413 years, 000 years, 95 years and 000 years respectively... (difficult to see any correlation in this graph? ) there is at least this constant by which successively every 125 years, the Earth cools, then takes another 000 years to warm up, then gradually "boiling" the oceans (a bit like waving a bottle of Perrier in a super long slow motion) oceans which then release their Co² and then reabsorb it in a reverse cooling phase for the next 20 years (and so on)...

There are people like Vincent Courtillot who have made these calculations.

And the only way for "this to stop" would be to remove the large planets which somewhat hinder the Earth in its orbital course, by the effects of their large mass... (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus ) https://promenade.imcce.fr/fr/pages5/557.html

[Obamot]

PS: people like Vincent Courtillot are challenged, as they themselves had somewhat debunked the IPCC theory

however the amount of Co² contained in the oceans is far from insignificant, it represents an astronomical volume... compared to the anthropogenic share of 2 or 3%

The Mann curve is frankly not serious...

[Woof woof]

“According to him, by falling this meteorite would have caused such an earthquake that it would have awakened volcanoes, until then dormant, all over the world and in particular in India.
For this, he and his team rely on new, more precise dating of lava flows in the Deccan region at that time. These show that they doubled in size in the 50.000 years following the fall of the meteorite.
“Based on our dating of the Deccan lavas, we can be fairly certain that this resurgence of volcanic activity, the meteorite impact and the extinction occurred within the same 50.000-year time frame,” says Paul. Reindeer"
It would be good to visit the links before commenting!
https://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/france-monde/extinction-des-dinosaures-volcans-ou-meteorite-sans-doute-un-peu-des-deux

Since there was an impact at that time, the easiest way to check if there was an effect on volcanism is to check (again) on a list of volcanism.
https://forums.infoclimat.fr/f/topic/35501-volcanisme-et-climat/

Meteorites and volcanism have an effect on the climate, I did not say otherwise.
Especially if they are cumulated, it is called impact volcanism.
In general, the effects of volcanic cooling last from a few months to several years, depending on the size of the eruption and weather conditions.

In the link, https://forums.infoclimat.fr/f/topic/35 ... et-climat/
The number in years represents the duration of the period between two eruptions of this magnitude and not the duration of the climatic cooling linked to the volcano in question.

the global cooling during the dinosaur extinction lasted several years, possibly up to a decade. This has resulted in reduced photosynthesis, decreased phytoplankton production, and disruption of ocean and land food chains. Climatic conditions returned to normal within a few thousand years.
However, the meteorite impact also caused other changes that had longer-term consequences. For example, ocean acidification and disruption of biogeochemical cycles had effects that persisted for thousands of years after impact.

There was no meteorite or recent impact volcanism, large enough to have a climatic effect over several thousand years, which would explain the stability of the Holocene by a natural global warming, thwarted by a long cooling , linked to a meteorite with impact volcanism.
For known volcanoes, the temporal orders of magnitude of their effects are not there. The effects of volcanic cooling last from a few months to several years.

For them to be, it would have taken a meteorite, no doubt of the type that eradicated the dinosaurs.
She would not have gone unnoticed. Would we be there to talk about it?

[pacien-]

Between non-specialists we should agree obamot.
I do not know if what I distinguish on the curve is the envelope of a large oscillation or a simple underlying trend? But I don't imagine it having an influence on such a short event. unless there is a synchronization of several parameters which causes an extremely rare event, which is not impossible.
Just an example with the shortest periods: 12000 and 40000 which have a timing of 120a. But no accident equivalent to the DryasR 000a ago! Imagine the synchronization time with several longer periods.
With 20a, the only spectacular event is the transition from the coldest of a glaciation to the warmest of an interglaciation.

We do not generally agree wow wow for the "direct" effects, but after that it is the researcher of the study who must be convinced.
(It is not the periodicity of volcanism in red that should be looked at but the dates in black).
Probable size 3km, 1/3 of the dinosaur killer, it's not negligible!
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoth%C3%A8se_de_l%27impact_cosmique_du_Dryas_r%C3%A9cent

It is not important to admit that meteorites have caused eruptions and cooling since 12a. The important thing is that a cooling neutralized the global warming that began 000a ago, without comparison with the brutal collapse of 20a ago.
Temporally we should be at the top of the Milankovitch Oscillation, at the hottest. So orbitally we are at the peak of cyclic global warming insolation (120a).
What is worrying for humanity is that this cooling cannot last. Either it lasts another 3000a and propels us directly into the glaciation slope of a weakening insolation (which anthropogenic warming would make chaotic).
Either the cooling is over and the maximum of the cyclic insolation makes us suddenly catch up 10a of delay in global warming, an alternative that will not please the followers of anthropogenic, just before we switch to the brutal slope of the cooling!
And if the anthropogenic sends us to hell, the resources are not eternal, the harder the fall will be.
https://www.futura-sciences.com/planete/actualites/rechauffement-climatique-rechauffement-climatique-comme-celui-nous-vivons-deja-produit-passe-97403/
But the video of obamot raises doubts!

[Obamot]

Temporally we should be at the top of the Milankovitch Oscillation, at the hottest. So orbitally we are at the peak of cyclic global warming insolation (120a).

I see it the same.

I'm just correcting a word that seems to me to be a slip in the quote

What is worrying for humanity is that this ^{refroidissement} current warming cannot be sustainable. Either it lasts another 3000a and propels us directly into the glaciation slope of a weakening insolation (which anthropogenic warming would make chaotic).
Either the cooling is over and the maximum of the cyclical insolation makes us suddenly catch up 10a of delay in global warming, an alternative that will not please the followers of anthropogenic, just before we switch to the brutal slope of the cooling!
And if the anthropogenic sends us to hell, the resources are not eternal, the harder the fall will be.
https://www.futura-sciences.com/planete/actualites/rechauffement-climatique-rechauffement-climatique-comme-celui-nous-vivons-deja-produit-passe-97403/
But the video of obamot raises doubts!

this is exactly the subject of my reflections... and one could add that in 3, we will have exhausted all fossil energies, as well as the deposits of radioactive minerals (uranium, thorium)... Futura Science seems same opinion on this approximate period of 000 years, and at the coldest with average temperatures of less than 20⁰C compared to now, says a team of researchers (for 000⁰C on average during the last century!) I find them very optimistic , that said...

https://www.futura-sciences.com/planete ... ire-82668/

To survive, our hair will have to develop in areas with an unfavorable climate (unless genetic engineering modifies humans, which I fear), and won't the last resort be solar (thermodynamic and photovoltaic )...? And the havens of "comfort" towards the sunniest islands, thanks to the thermal balloon represented by the water of the seas... But let's bet that by then, technological discoveries will be able to "save humanity" or at all cases make life in the cold more bearable in climatically disadvantaged areas... And of course, in countries where temperatures are currently over 40⁰C during the hot season, I imagine that these will be favored (but could nevertheless eventually experience frost episodes in the cold season)?

[izentrop]

Obamot brings out the climato-skeptic theses of V Courtillot largely dismantled.
And pacien who forgets the anthropogenic CO2 factor

CO2, or carbon dioxide, or carbon dioxide, is a stable molecule once in the atmosphere: as long as it is “in the air” and far from the ground, it is indestructible. Its effect on the climate is not chemical, but physical: it opacifies the atmosphere with the infrared radiation emitted by the surface, and this effect lasts as long as our molecule of carbon dioxide travels through the air.

Our atmosphere is therefore "filled" or "emptied" of its CO2 in contact with the ground. On the "bung" side, nature uses photosynthesis, for 440 billion tonnes of CO2 per year for the entire planet, and absorption by ocean water in the process of cooling (because CO2 dissolves better in the cold water than in hot water), which represents about 255 billion tons per year.

On the emissions side, we will find the restitution of CO2 (previously dissolved) from the masses of water which are warming up (255 billion tonnes too), and the respiration of plants (which breathe!) and animals (the carbon of CO2 exhaled comes precisely from plants eaten by bugs, from microbes to elephants).

As soon as man adds his own emissions, coming from fossil fuels, it will increase the amount of CO2 in the air. Admittedly, part of it will be taken up by a little more active photosynthesis as long as the climatic conditions remain favorable (this is starting to no longer be the case), or a slightly favored oceanic absorption, but that is not enough to absorb the surplus of emissions.

Part of the surplus therefore remains in the atmosphere. In 2020, with just a few % decrease compared to 2019, we will see the atmospheric concentration increase "almost normally", especially since the variability of the natural CO2 cycle - which, as we have seen, is around 700 billion annual tons traded in each direction – will probably mask the decrease of about 2 billion tons in our emissions.

https://jancovici.com/publications-et-c ... ns-de-co2/

[Woof woof]

In the green rectangle, the rate of natural warming at the end of the Würm Ice Age is compared with the current warming in dotted lines.
It can be seen that the cooling of the Younger Dryas occurs in a period of rather stable climate, it does not thwart natural warming.
After the end of the Younger Dryas, we see that the climate is almost stable for 4000 to 5000 years before the current warming, the speed of which is much greater than any natural warming.
No relationship between a meteorite + impact volcanism in the Recent Dryas and current warming.