Well if in 800 000 years the earth has never seen co2 this high, as part of the natural variation, and the increase starts quite soon after we start burning fossil fuels (which never happened in the 800 000 years previously) then you can certainly say that's an anomonly.
I'm sure it's not intentional, but that has some BAS-like undertones - i.e. you seem to be thinking that I am one of what he calls my "fellow travellers", and also forgetting the point I was making....
... I have clarified for you, only a page or two back, that my view is that it is
almost certain that the burning of fossil fuels is the
biggest single factor which has led to the substantial increase in atmospheric CO
2 levels and consequent climate changes (in highly non-scientific, everyday terms, it is 'pretty obvious'). In the same post, I even told you that I am perfectly open to the possibility that the burning of fossil fuel might be responsible for
virtually all of those changes (but don't think that we know that for sure). I am therefore not "one of them" that you might be more used to arguing with or trying to convince/convert.
My recent comments were stimulated by yours about historical variability (or the lack of it) in historical ice-core data. I pointed out that this (assuming it to be true) illustrated the fact that natural control processes seemed to have managed to maintain a fairly constant atmosphere despite the natural phenomena ('short-term' climate changes, vulcanism, species extinctions etc.) which must have occurred and tried to increase atmospheric CO2 from time to time - and hence my degree of surprise that those control processes have not coped a bit better with the changes due to the burning of fossil fuels.
I've just found data that has samples for the past 800000 years at significantly less than 10000 year intervals.
Can you point me to that since, as I said, I have yet to find any such data?
I don't think we would see a spike and reduction within that period especially when there is a clear pattern over that 800 000 years of gradual increases and gradual reductions over long periods.
Without seeing the less-coarse data, I don't know about atmospheric CO
2 but, in general, it is extremely common for data relating to almost anything to show very different short-term, medium-term and long-term variability (sometimes with superimposed complications due to seasonal or other cyclical changes). That's true of heart rate or blood pressure, a house's electricity usage, share prices and millions of other things. If I only had daily data on electricity use, I would be oblivious to the considerable hour-by-hour and minute-by-minute variation.
I could explain what the evidence is till I am blue in the face, but I don't think you will have a damacene moment, so I'll stop wasting all of our time.
As above, if you're talking about evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is (at least) the largest single factor that has given rise to recent (50-200 years) increases in atmospheric CO
2, and consequential climate changes, then there is no need for any damascene (with an 's'
) moment, since you are preaching to the converted. My discussion has been at a level of appreciably greater subtlety and detail than that. As above, in terms of proper science, it's a horribly dangerous/'wrong' thing to say, but in everyday terms, the causal relationship between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change is 'pretty obvious'! ... and I have repeatedly stressed the importance of doing all we can to reduce, if not eliminate, those emissions (as well as other aspects of 'ACC' - trees, cows, population growth, diet etc.).
My involvement all really started because I reacted to BAS's assertions about what he seems to regard as 'absolute certainties', and the things he was saying about people who felt we should take a more measured scientific approach than that.
I am finding it hard to believe you are not being deliberately obtuse (I don't think you are, based on your posting history in Electrics).
As above, perhaps (seemingly like BAS) you have not fully understood my position (as clarified, again, above), since I am in no way contesting/challenging/doubting the importance of the burning of fossil fuels and the importance of reducing it.
If you have looked at much of what I've written in this forum (and elsewhere, although you wouldn't then know it was me
), you will perhaps understand that what you might consider to be "being deliberately obtuse" may relate to the fact that I often "play Devil's Advocate", in the interests of ensuring that all possible viewpoints are reasonably represented, considered and sensibly discussed. I would add that a substantial part of my life has been (and is) involved in the rigorous examination of scientific data and the conclusions which people draw, want to draw to try to draw from it!
Again, I thank you for an interesting, stimulating and enjoyable discussion.
Kind Regards, John