CO2 Has Determined The Entire Course Of Human History

Puritans caused the Little Ice Age. Every event was a direct result of Human CO2 production.

Lastly, a significant decrease in emissions began in the 16th century – the one which would herald the minor ice age. Jed Kaplan has an audacious hypothesis to explain the dip in the data curve: “Thanks to the reports of the early explorers, we know that the forests were less abundant on the American continent. Then the settlers gradually eliminated the indigenous population.” Threatened with extinction, these populations effectively deserted the forested areas, which – by taking up the carbon in the atmosphere – in turn set off the legendary frosts of the 19th century. “Of course, it’s only a hypothesis”, he concludes, “but given the data we have gathered, it’s entirely plausible”.

Jed Kaplan’s model is not in contradiction with the previous ones on one critical point: the enormous increase in emissions from the beginning of the industrial era, and the massive use of fossil fuels. “We are just saying that our influence on the climate began a lot earlier than we thought. In 6000 BC, we were already accumulating significant quantities of carbon in the atmosphere, even though it was nothing compared to the situation today”, adds the scientist. A conclusion that could turn out to be critical in the future for the improved evaluation of the decisive impact of the forests on the climate.

h/t to hauntingthelibrary and Marc Morano


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to CO2 Has Determined The Entire Course Of Human History

  1. suyts says:

    So, what is the minimum amount of atmospheric CO2 to maintain modern life on this planet?

    • latitude says:

      believe it or not, I think it’s about 250ppm

      Almost all plants show a marked reduction in growth at 250.
      But considering modern plants evolved for levels in the thousands ppm, anything below that will show a reduction in growth.

      180 ppm will flat out kill modern plants though.

      I can’t believe there’s this whole science based on lowering CO2 levels, when those levels are that low.

      We really should be worried about why CO2 is so low, when we know that almost everything we need evolved in much higher levels.
      Why is this planet sucking up CO2 at this rate, and what can we do to replace it.

      • suyts says:

        Exactly, and this idiot says, …….
        “In 6000 BC, we were already accumulating significant quantities of carbon in the atmosphere,…

        I wonder what he thinks the atmospheric CO2 was 6000 B.C.?

      • omnologos says:

        References for the 180ppm plant-killing level?

      • latitude says:

        om, that should be on the internet somewhere.
        Search for plants, CO2, C3, C4, etc

        Most of what we’ve worked with is flat out kill, which for c3’s is about 150 ppm.
        But when you look at sustainability, CO2 levels have to be much higher. Plants just can’t grow fast enough at low CO2 levels to maintain their populations.

        C3’s will slow down so much at 250 ppm that they can’t reproduce fast enough.

        C4’s do a little better, but that’s because of tropical habitats, and they don’t have to replace themselves as fast.

      • suyts says:

        Om, I’m still looking for verifiable science, but from Wiki,…………………. Plants that survive solely on C3 fixation (C3 plants) tend to thrive in areas where sunlight intensity is moderate, temperatures are moderate, carbon dioxide concentrations are around 200 ppm or higher, and ground water is plentiful.

      • suyts says:

        This graphic pretty much explains it all.

    • suyts says:

      Hahahaha, No, I’ve no idea what it means.

  2. Andy Weiss says:

    Where do they come up with this BS?

  3. omnologos says:

    It says a lot that in the e-mail I have received from wordpress, it was not possible to tell which bit was Steven’s, and which bit was Physorg’s. The CO2 obsession will soon move beyond parody.

  4. Dave N says:

    Interesting they don’t present any figures, especially the most important ones: volume of human produced CO2 versus natural. Back in the time they’re talking about, there were no power plants, no fossil fuel driven transport, etc etc. Given the small ratio now, the ratio back then would seem like a microdrop in all of the oceans.

    PhysOrg has sunk to depths that I figured no-one would ever reach, except maybe Hansen, or Romm, whom I wouldn’t be surprised if he believed this complete and utter BS entirely.

  5. Espen says:

    Temperatures have been steadily going down since 6000 BC, so what they’re basically saying is that “we think anthropogenic CO2 saved us from entering a new glacial stage a few hundred years ago” 😉

    They’re little ice age theory is hysterically funny. And it’s interesting they’re claiming that CO2 emissions actually dropped from the 16th century on, when in fact the forests of Europe at that time were severely reduced by the growing charcoal-based iron industry.

  6. Robinson says:

    Oh please, this is insane.

    • Mike Davis says:

      Not Really! It is “Normal Climatology” at work! For a logical person it would appear to be from someone spaced out on mind altering drugs. I think it is a poor attempt to impersonate Dean Koontz or L Ron Hubbard!
      Since I started reading the historical revisions about the PETM and Mann’s work of fantasy I have expected them to get more outlandish.

  7. Richard says:

    I find it impossible to understand what they want left for humans to use.. no coal, gas, nuke plants, can’t burn wood, use electricty,drive cars, use the bus, ride a horse, can’t build Dams, wear tennis shoes, live in a big home, dig a hole, and they praise Ghenjis Khan for killing humans by the millions. Is that what they want? Where is anything positive from this movement? Are we stand on a hill waiting for the world to end? Or pull the trigger ourselves? I reject their dooms day.. survive the eco madness.. LIVE free.

  8. Tom Hollis says:

    Strange, all the honest scientific data illustrates that CO2 annual generation is > 90 % natural (sun load on oceans, that contain 30 times more CO2 than the atmosphere; plus vocanoes, trees dying etc.). Point to remember is that the wonderful CO2 gas only represents 1/2500 of the atmosphere – difficult to imagine greatly effecting the atmospheric temperature?

  9. David says:

    So the warmists can’t explain the Little Ice Age! So they come up with this ridiculous piece that Genghis Khan’s reign of terror had an effect on the planet’s weather and the amount of CO2.

    If anyone had come up with such a theory thirty or forty years ago and presented it to a publication, they would have been laughed out of the academic world. It sounds like this paper should have been read by John Clegg on a Monty Python sketch.

    Have we reached a point where someone actually believes the stupidity presented in this article?

  10. Gator says:

    If this theory were true, temperatures should be lower now than they were 100 years ago as we have more forests now than a century ago. The warmist’s stories just never add up, enough already. CO2 is not it guys. Besides, does anyone remember American Indians being big into timber? I do not recall alot of log cabins being bulit by them.

  11. Charles Higley says:

    ““Of course, it’s only a hypothesis”, he concludes, “but given the data we have gathered, it’s entirely plausible”.”

    NOT EVEN CLOSE TO PLAUSIBLE. The concept that the American Indians had denuded the continent and caused global warming is ludicrous. There were just not that many. If they had the effect that is claimed here, then our current population has already had huge effects and we are cooking at the moment, we are dead and failed to notice it.

    This is wishful thinking gone stupid.

  12. William McClenney says:

    Somebody ought to send Kaplan a note about Tzedakis, 2010.

    The MIS 11 – MIS 1 analogy, southern European vegetation,
    atmospheric methane and the “early anthropogenic hypothesis”

    Clim. Past, 6, 131–144, 2010

    In perhaps the most open peer review process currently being practiced in the world today (The European Geosciences Union website Climate of the Past Discussions) published a quite thorough examination of the state of the science related to the two most recent interglacials, which like the present one, the Holocene (or MIS-1) is compared to MIS-19 and MIS-11, the other two interglacials which have occurred since the Mid Pleistocene Transition (MPT) and also occurred at eccentricity minimums. Since its initial publication in 2009, and its republication after the open online peer review process again in March of this year (2010), this paper is now also considered a landmark review of the state of paleoclimate science. In it he also considers Ruddiman’s Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis, with Ruddiman a part of the online review. Tzedakis’ concluding remarks are enlightening:

    “On balance, what emerges is that projections on the natural duration of the current interglacial depend on the choice of analogue, while corroboration or refutation of the “early anthropogenic hypothesis” on the basis of comparisons with earlier interglacials remains irritatingly inconclusive.”

    Sorry. It’s been done before, without models, and we just don’t know.

  13. Dr. Killpatient says:

    Damned Injun farts screwed up everything.

  14. Pingback: Apparently, Man Caused Every Climate Event. Sigh » Pirate's Cove

  15. Charles Higley says:

    Kaplan has one huge mistake in his thinking. He keeps referring to accumulating CO2 in the atmosphere. This is not likely with a half-life of 5.4 years (average of 3-20 years in real research papers. He obviously uses and believes the groundless 200-year half-life the IPCC made up or the 1000-year half-life that NASA/NOAA fabricated. The turnover as well as the amount of CO2 being released 8000 years ago would have no effect on climate, just as it has no effect today.

    If CO2 caused any warming, it would cause cooling as a result. Warming would ramp up the convectional cooling heat engine of the water cycle, making the transfer of energy to altitude and space more effective.

    Only by ignoring this very real huge heat engine can the IPCC pretend that CO2 can warm anything in a detectable manner. Only be altering and increasing a thermodynamic factor for CO2 can the IPCC pretend that CO2 is an effective heat-trapping gas. Only by pretending that all effects by water vapor are positive feedbacks, rather than the huge negative feedback of the water cycle, can they pretend that water vapor augments CO2’s effects. Only by completely misrepresenting the structure of the atmosphere, allowing no convection and radiation only, can they pretend that IR radiation is the only energy involved.

    In fact, IR is not warmth, it is electromagnetic radiation. IR absorbed at the surface that results in water evaporation does not warm the atmosphere. It is temperature neutral as its energy went to a phase change. The water vapor, making the air less dense, promotes convection. At altitude, with cooling, the water vapor condenses and the heat released is lost to space. Estimates are that the convection of warm, moist air accounts for 92% of the outward energy transfer, with only 8% as IR. No wonder Trenberth has a hard time finding the missing energy. It goes right by him Instead, he pretends that it must be hiding in the oceans, waiting to jump out and warm us at some unknown time.

    Not only is the claim of manmade Global warming falling apart, but the idea that even natural CO2 drives the climate is not valid. However, that does not keep “scientists” wishing to preserve their no-longer valid funding from pretending that they can blame CO2 for virtually everything. What hubris it is to take a trace gas and claim it has a major role other than helping plants and coral reefs grow.

    They need a serious perspective adjustment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s