Global Warming is such Wooly Mammoth Crap.

[Old Rocks]

Well, silly stupid bitch, it tells me that you know absolutely nothing about the subject, and that you intend to keep it that way. That you are perfectly happy to wallow in your ignorance, like an old sow in the mud wallow. You were given the information, but you refuse even to look at it. LOL Just another knownothing fat ass.

 

[Wyatt earp]

She also knows about dinosaurs and ice ages that man had nothing to do with

Yes idiot, the same scientists who taught us everything and anything we know about any of that have formulated the current, accepted theories and have supported them with mountains of science. Did that even cross your mind befire you vomited that post? Think of the stupidity of what you are trying (not very well) to say....that these scientists need to be reminded of their own discoveries by some uneducated idiot who looks at all of this through a lens of superstition amd politics. I'm not sure which is more outrageously idiotic: the idea itself, or the fact that you can't see how idiotic it is for yourself.

That post says what to me?

What accepted theory's ?

We had 5 ice ages..
Ok
How many of those ice ages was caused by man


1?
2?
3?
4?
5?

You tell us..how many

Have you forwarded your brilliant question on to the scientists who not only taught us all of that, but also are sounding the alarms about AGW? Imagine their embarrassment when they find they were outsmarted by a GED-waving goober with no education or experience in this field! You must be very proud of yourself!

Goober that would be you now tell us fruit loops who caused the 5 ice ages fuck head?


Tell us

She also knows about dinosaurs and ice ages that man had nothing to do with

Yes idiot, the same scientists who taught us everything and anything we know about any of that have formulated the current, accepted theories and have supported them with mountains of science. Did that even cross your mind befire you vomited that post? Think of the stupidity of what you are trying (not very well) to say....that these scientists need to be reminded of their own discoveries by some uneducated idiot who looks at all of this through a lens of superstition amd politics. I'm not sure which is more outrageously idiotic: the idea itself, or the fact that you can't see how idiotic it is for yourself.

That post says what to me?

What accepted theory's ?

We had 5 ice ages..
Ok
How many of those ice ages was caused by man


1?
2?
3?
4?
5?

You tell us..how many

Have you forwarded your brilliant question on to the scientists who not only taught us all of that, but also are sounding the alarms about AGW? Imagine their embarrassment when they find they were outsmarted by a GED-waving goober with no education or experience in this field! You must be very proud of yourself!

Goober that would be you now tell us fruit loops who caused the 5 ice ages fuck head?


Tell us

Past and future Milankovitch cycles. VSOP allows prediction of past and future orbital parameters with great accuracy.

Figure shows variations in orbital elements:

Obliquity (axial tilt) (ε).

Eccentricity (e).

Longitude of perihelion (sin(ϖ) ).

Precession index (e sin(ϖ) ), which together with obliquity, controls the seasonal cycle of insolation.[1]

Calculated daily-averaged insolation at the top of the atmosphere ({\displaystyle {\overline {Q}}^{\mathrm {day} }}

),

on the day of the summer solstice at 65° N latitude.


Two distinct proxies for past global sea level and temperature, from ocean sediment and Antarctic ice respectively are:

Benthic forams

Vostok ice core

The vertical gray line shows current conditions, at 2 ky A.D.

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia

And you thought that you knew something? LOL

Quit posting wiki for one shit for brains it makes you look like an idiot on here .


We are talking science and politics here not blogs that anyone can edit ...i know all about Milankovitch cycles again I ask you why you want another ice age ? You stupid fucker you think your wind mills and solar power would produce electricity covered with snow moron?


God you ARE RETARDED...

 

[Old Rocks]

Abstract
Earth's land-sea distribution modifies the temperature response to orbitally induced perturbations of the seasonal insolation. We examine this modification in the frequency domain by generating 800,000-yr time series of maximum summer temperature in selected regions with a linear, two-dimensional, seasonal energy balance climate model. Previous studies have demonstrated that this model has a sensitivity comparable to general circulation models for the seasonal temperature response to orbital forcing on land. Although the observed response in the geologic record is sometimes significantly different than modeled here (differences attributable to model limitations and feedbacks involving the ocean-atmosphere-cryosphere system), there are several results of significance: (1) in mid-latitude land areas the orbital signal is translated linearly into a large (>10°C) seasonal temperature response; (2) although the modeled seasonal response to orbital forcing on Antarctica is 6°C, the annual mean temperature effect (<2°C) is only about one-fifth that inferred from the Vostok ice core, and primarily restricted to periods near 41,000 yr; (3) equatorial regions have the richest spectrum of temperature response, with a 3000-yr phase shift in the precession response, plus some power near periods of 10,000–12,000 yr, 41,000 yr, 100,000 yr, and 400,000 yr. Peaks at 10,000–12,000 yr and 100,000 and 400,000 yr result from the twice-yearly passage of the sun across the equator. The complex model response in equatorial regions has some resemblance to geologic time series from this region. The amplification of model response over equatorial land masses at the 100,000-yr period may explain some of the observed large variance in this band in geologic records, especially in pre-Pleistocene records from times of little or no global ice volume.
Filtering of milankovitch cycles by earth's geography - ScienceDirect

one

 

[Old Rocks]

Abstract
Climate variability exists at all timescales—and climatic processes are intimately coupled, so that understanding variability at any one timescale requires some understanding of the whole. Records of the Earth's surface temperature illustrate this interdependence, having a continuum of variability following a power-law scaling1,2,3,4,5,6,7. But although specific modes of interannual variability are relatively well understood8,9, the general controls on continuum variability are uncertain and usually described as purely stochastic processes10,11,12,13. Here we show that power-law relationships of surface temperature variability scale with annual and Milankovitch-period (23,000- and 41,000-year) cycles. The annual cycle corresponds to scaling at monthly to decadal periods, while millennial and longer periods are tied to the Milankovitch cycles. Thus the annual, Milankovitch and continuum temperature variability together represent the response to deterministic insolation forcing. The identification of a deterministic control on the continuum provides insight into the mechanisms governing interannual and longer-period climate variability.
Links between annual, Milankovitch and continuum temperature variability

two

 

[Old Rocks]

Abstract
Detailed cyclostratigraphic analyses of the Valanginian to Hauterivian part of the Biancone Formation, a pelagic nannofossil limestone in the Southern Alps of Italy, were carried out. The Cismon section in the Belluno Trough near Feltre and the Pra da Stua section on the Trento Plateau near Avio were studied. Carbonate content, magnetic susceptibility and natural remanent magnetization were measured on densely spaced samples from Cismon. The first two properties vary in a cyclic fashion in this pelagic limestone section and are almost perfectly negatively correlated, while cyclicity in natural remanent magnetization is only vaguely indicated. Quantitative time-series analysis is critical in cyclic stratigraphy. The geostatistical method of cova functions (a generalization of the cross-variogram) which has proven to be the most versatile and robust time-series-analysis method is applied. Cova functions can be calculated from unevenly and non-correspondingly spaced time series without any preprocessing. This method also retains relatively more of the signal when noise and extreme outliers obscure the picture. The periodicities detected in the Cismon time series fall in the range of Milankovitch cycles. Cycle periods of 45 cm, 80 cm and 180 cm likely correspond to dominant precession, obliquity and eccentricity cycles. Owing to the inaccuracy of the Cretaceous time scale, periods cannot be matched exactly, but cycle ratios are extremely close to expected ratios so that Milankovitch climate cycles could be positively identified in this Early Cretaceous section. In the Pra da Stua section bedding thickness was measured and analyzed quantitatively. A cycle period of 55 cm is dominant in this data set, while periods of 115 cm and 170 cm are only vaguely indicated, although bedding in the sampled interval visually appears cyclic and even hierarchically structured. It can be expected that densely spaced measurements of sedimentary properties such as susceptibility and carbonate content will reveal the cyclicity much better. This identification of Milankovitch cyclicity in the pelagic Biancone Formation has important consequences for our understanding of the climate system in the past. These results demonstrate that orbital forcing was effective enough to create palaeoclimatic cycles even in the Cretaceous warm, equable, ice-free climate state. Magnetic susceptibility proved to be a reliable proxy for carbonate content reflecting palaeoproductivity cycles in this pelagic setting
Milankovitch cyclicity and rock-magnetic signatures of palaeoclimatic change in the Early Cretaceous Biancone Formation of the Southern Alps, Italy - ScienceDirect

three The Milankovic Cycles have been around for a long time. There effects are not in doubt. Now, by those cycles, we should slowly be getting cooler. Slowly as in over thousands of years. And that is what the 10,000 year old temperature record shows. Until the start of the industrial revolution. Now we are very rapidly warming. Because we have put more GHGs in the atmosphere than there has been in since before the ice ages began.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Abstract
Earth's land-sea distribution modifies the temperature response to orbitally induced perturbations of the seasonal insolation. We examine this modification in the frequency domain by generating 800,000-yr time series of maximum summer temperature in selected regions with a linear, two-dimensional, seasonal energy balance climate model. Previous studies have demonstrated that this model has a sensitivity comparable to general circulation models for the seasonal temperature response to orbital forcing on land. Although the observed response in the geologic record is sometimes significantly different than modeled here (differences attributable to model limitations and feedbacks involving the ocean-atmosphere-cryosphere system), there are several results of significance: (1) in mid-latitude land areas the orbital signal is translated linearly into a large (>10°C) seasonal temperature response; (2) although the modeled seasonal response to orbital forcing on Antarctica is 6°C, the annual mean temperature effect (<2°C) is only about one-fifth that inferred from the Vostok ice core, and primarily restricted to periods near 41,000 yr; (3) equatorial regions have the richest spectrum of temperature response, with a 3000-yr phase shift in the precession response, plus some power near periods of 10,000–12,000 yr, 41,000 yr, 100,000 yr, and 400,000 yr. Peaks at 10,000–12,000 yr and 100,000 and 400,000 yr result from the twice-yearly passage of the sun across the equator. The complex model response in equatorial regions has some resemblance to geologic time series from this region. The amplification of model response over equatorial land masses at the 100,000-yr period may explain some of the observed large variance in this band in geologic records, especially in pre-Pleistocene records from times of little or no global ice volume.
Filtering of milankovitch cycles by earth's geography - ScienceDirect

one

The complex model response in equatorial regions has some resemblance to geologic time series from this region. The amplification of model response over equatorial land masses at the 100,000-yr period may explain some of the observed large variance in this band in geologic records, especially in pre-Pleistocene records from times of little or no global ice volume.



A complex model?



Get the fuck out of here once again...hey old rocks you do live in a state that your government thinks your to stupid to pump your own gas right?


Coincidence?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Abstract
Detailed cyclostratigraphic analyses of the Valanginian to Hauterivian part of the Biancone Formation, a pelagic nannofossil limestone in the Southern Alps of Italy, were carried out. The Cismon section in the Belluno Trough near Feltre and the Pra da Stua section on the Trento Plateau near Avio were studied. Carbonate content, magnetic susceptibility and natural remanent magnetization were measured on densely spaced samples from Cismon. The first two properties vary in a cyclic fashion in this pelagic limestone section and are almost perfectly negatively correlated, while cyclicity in natural remanent magnetization is only vaguely indicated. Quantitative time-series analysis is critical in cyclic stratigraphy. The geostatistical method of cova functions (a generalization of the cross-variogram) which has proven to be the most versatile and robust time-series-analysis method is applied. Cova functions can be calculated from unevenly and non-correspondingly spaced time series without any preprocessing. This method also retains relatively more of the signal when noise and extreme outliers obscure the picture. The periodicities detected in the Cismon time series fall in the range of Milankovitch cycles. Cycle periods of 45 cm, 80 cm and 180 cm likely correspond to dominant precession, obliquity and eccentricity cycles. Owing to the inaccuracy of the Cretaceous time scale, periods cannot be matched exactly, but cycle ratios are extremely close to expected ratios so that Milankovitch climate cycles could be positively identified in this Early Cretaceous section. In the Pra da Stua section bedding thickness was measured and analyzed quantitatively. A cycle period of 55 cm is dominant in this data set, while periods of 115 cm and 170 cm are only vaguely indicated, although bedding in the sampled interval visually appears cyclic and even hierarchically structured. It can be expected that densely spaced measurements of sedimentary properties such as susceptibility and carbonate content will reveal the cyclicity much better. This identification of Milankovitch cyclicity in the pelagic Biancone Formation has important consequences for our understanding of the climate system in the past. These results demonstrate that orbital forcing was effective enough to create palaeoclimatic cycles even in the Cretaceous warm, equable, ice-free climate state. Magnetic susceptibility proved to be a reliable proxy for carbonate content reflecting palaeoproductivity cycles in this pelagic setting
Milankovitch cyclicity and rock-magnetic signatures of palaeoclimatic change in the Early Cretaceous Biancone Formation of the Southern Alps, Italy - ScienceDirect

three The Milankovic Cycles have been around for a long time. There effects are not in doubt. Now, by those cycles, we should slowly be getting cooler. Slowly as in over thousands of years. And that is what the 10,000 year old temperature record shows. Until the start of the industrial revolution. Now we are very rapidly warming. Because we have put more GHGs in the atmosphere than there has been in since before the ice ages began.

Detailed cyclostratigraphic analyses of the Valanginian to Hauterivian part of the Biancone Formation, a pelagic nannofossillimestone in the Southern Alps of Italy,


Local weather don't mean global right?

Fucking asshole give me something usefull and not romper room crap

 

[toobfreak]

Back in 2000 Al Gore said that the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years

Link?

BTW Gore is not a scientist and should not be treated as one.

Here's an example of what scientist predicted 10 years ago.

Projections of Future Changes in Climate - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

The funny thing is that the nature of climate IS to change! It is always changing! But how it is changing and why is only beginning to be understood. The main problem is that climate changes over centuries, millenniums, eons and epochs, and we only have a few decades of sampling research to base our understanding.

Global Warming is such Wooly Mammoth Crap

Sad to say, global warming is REAL and INEVITABLE. In about a billion years, our Sun will begin to transition from hydrogen burning to helium, and will begin to turn redder and swell and get hotter. As the eons pass, the Earth will get only hotter and hotter, eventually drying up and the oceans boiling away. And there's not a DAMN THING anyone can do about it, so we might as well just relax and enjoy it while we can.

 

[Mousterian]

16 minute TED talk, worth watching,

 

[SSDD]

Yes, that's right, "name calling". You sit there and call the people who have dedicated their lives to this science "incompetent liars", and then you have the nerve to whine like a little bitch that someone called you a name when standing up for them?

Then lets see just a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....if they are the true men of science you claim them to be, then surely they have evidence to support the hypothesis they support...surely they are not making the sort of forecasts for future climate and asking for the sort of social change they suggest without an overwhelming body of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports their hypothesis over the null hypothesis.

I am not asking for the overwhelming body of evidence that a true scientific body would have before they began making such forecasts and suggestions for sweeping social change...I am just asking for a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data which supports the hypothesis over natural variability...and neither you, nor all of climate science can provide it.

Does that speak to dedicated men of science or incompetent liars?

You are an uneducated slob who knows jack shit about any of this.

More name calling without the first shred of actual data to support your own position. You just keep on fitting my description of you. Alas, it seems to be you who doesn't know jack. Two questions and you are reduced to this...you are a joke.

Nor do you have any wish to know anything about it.

You may not have noticed...being so immersed in your pompous ignorance...that it is me who is asking for data...me who is asking for information that at least supports the hypothesis. I have been asking for decades and getting the same response over that span of time as you are giving me now...puffed up bloviating about how little I know, all manner of logical fallacy, name calling...and never the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis s over natural variability.

That is why your worthless ass is here squawking into an echo chamber, and not learning about the topic from the scientists who taught us everything we know about it.

I am asking for data...it is you who is squawking..calling names, going on and on about how superior you are while not offering up even one small shred of observed, measured evidence which supports the hypothesis you so fervently believe in.

I'm not here to litigate the truth of accepted scientific theories with uneducated slobs who have less knowledge about any of this in their entire family than the scientists who study this have in a pimple on their ass. No, you are not presenting any actual challenge to any accepted science. You are merely masturbating in public

What a surprise...now it is excuses for why you aren't posting up that single shred of observed, measured quantified evidence that I keep asking for...and more name calling, and logical fallacy.

If you were capable of critical thinking at even the most fundamental level, you might ask yourself why it is that you can't offer up a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the so called "accepted science" associated with the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. You might ask why, if the so called science is such a slam dunk, you can't simply slap me down and make me your bitch with an overwhelming body of observed, measured data that supports your hypothesis rather than being reduced to insensate bleating...a never ending stream of logical fallacy, name calling, and impotent chest thumping.

You are to pitiful to laugh at.

 

[SSDD]

She also knows about dinosaurs and ice ages that man had nothing to do with

Yes idiot, the same scientists who taught us everything and anything we know about any of that have formulated the current, accepted theories and have supported them with mountains of science. Did that even cross your mind befire you vomited that post? Think of the stupidity of what you are trying (not very well) to say....that these scientists need to be reminded of their own discoveries by some uneducated idiot who looks at all of this through a lens of superstition amd politics. I'm not sure which is more outrageously idiotic: the idea itself, or the fact that you can't see how idiotic it is for yourself.

Wait a second let's back up here if I am uneducated monkey:

how would I ever know a about the ice ages ?

How would I know about C02 being five times higher in the Jurassic period?

How would I ever know about the great Sahara desert turning tropical to dry in a blink of a cosmic eye?

If I am uneducated how do I know that that Micheal Mann used just a a few tree rings in Siberia for his hockey stick graph


If I am so uneducated how do I know Naomi Klein says she wants social climate change justice

If I am so uneducated how do I know the temperature records are so unreliable in the early 1900s from land and oceans

If I am so uneducated how do I know about the climate gate emails

If I am so uneducated how do I know about cap and trade?

Fuck you you little prick I know more about the man made climate scam more then you ever will.

If we are so uneducated, how is it that we have so easily reduced him to insensate bleating about settled science, and his ever tedious stream of logical fallacy, and impotent chest thumping. Reducing a self proclaimed superior individual to such behavior is pretty impressive for a bunch of uneducated monkeys...if uneducated monkeys can drive him to such a state so easily, how much further down the ladder must his intellect actually be?

 

[Mousterian]

SSDD, did you watch the Ted talk, 1 page back?
You want evidence, there's one man's 30 years of evidence.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, did you watch the Ted talk, 1 page back?
You want evidence, there's one man's 30 years of evidence.

I watched about 6 minutes of it and it was just more of the same. In the 6 minutes I watched, I didn't see anything that was even coming close to being observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. In typical fashion, he presented plenty of evidence for things that I don't thing anyone is really disputing...that the cliamte changes...that we have seen climate change over the past 100 years..etc. etc. etc. Then he simply assumes that because the cliamte is changing...and man is here that man is causing the change. He, like all of you believers simply makes an assumption that we are driving the change.

I am not asking for much...just one piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. If he presents any such evidence on that video, then kindly point out an approximate time stamp within the video and I will gladly go back and watch again...and if such evidence is there, I will go back and watch the whole thing and probably begin to alter my position. I can be swayed by evidence, and it doesn't take a lot. I don't hold my position based on any ideology, or emotional attachment or political affiliation to the hypothesis...I hold my position because the hypothesis has failed...and because after decades of looking and asking people who are considered to be experts, I have yet to see a single shred of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. What other position could I possibly hold?

 

[Taz]

Coastal and low-lying areas are already in trouble. You need to get a fucking clue. Quickly.

You better tell them to move, Taz.

Relax. It's going to be ok, bro.

It's already not ok.

No different than it's ever been.

Why would you care any way? You won't live forever.

I have children and care about leaving them a shithole, unlike you.

They aren't going to live forever either.

Just how bad do you think this is going to get?

I need to assess your level of emotionalism.

So since you won't live much longer, you don't care of the environment? That's very selfish of you. But not surprising.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around… « FOX News Weather Blog

December 13, 2017 | 7:02 AM ET
Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around...
Good morning everyone. Happy Wednesday!

It’s a bitter cold midweek with windchills in the single digits and teens for millions this morning across the Great Lakes, Northeast, and Mid-Atlantic over the next few days.

So lets try this again.

Back in 2000 Al Gore said that the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years if the United States didn't do something about it. The Earth is still here.
Back in 2006 Al Gore produced an Inconvenient Truth predicting increased in Cat 5 hurricanes each year, massive tornado's, very little snow events, and warming to the point the Earth would burn up in 10 years. Guess what, less hurricanes each year, little tornado activities, lots of snow through polar vortexes, and the Earth is still here.
So with Global Warming year after year, because of the increase of CO2 each year, (liberal's words not mine) if last 2 years the temperature around Manassas has been in the high 30s and low 40s, WITH THE INCREASE OF TEMPERATURE YEAR AFTER YEAR....Where did the 20 degree temperature come from. What you morons don't understand is that your science says "each year with CO2 on the increase, the temperature will increase", yet is is 15 degrees lower...And don't give me shit that it is only weather... Yeah and when the summer is HOT , it is only weather.

Just some more Woolly Mammoth shit that the left doesn't want you to see.

Winter transforms Niagara Falls into winter wonderland

Ice coats the rocks and observation deck at the base of the Horseshoe falls in Niagara Falls, Ontario on Jan. 3, 2018.The cold snap which has gripped much of Canada and the United States has nearly frozen over the American side of the falls.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

You better tell them to move, Taz.

Relax. It's going to be ok, bro.

It's already not ok.

No different than it's ever been.

Why would you care any way? You won't live forever.

I have children and care about leaving them a shithole, unlike you.

They aren't going to live forever either.

Just how bad do you think this is going to get?

I need to assess your level of emotionalism.

So since you won't live much longer, you don't care of the environment? That's very selfish of you. But not surprising.

you don't care of the environment?

So you go to the inner cities and see the trash that the liberals leave on the ground knowing someone else will pick it up. You watch the liberal elites jet around in their private jets expecting the rest of us to stay home. Liberal elites ride around in their limos doing award this and award that, creating enough CO2 equal to a large city, yet they tell us to cut back on our energy usage or else the oceans will rise up and drown those very people who buy mansions on the ocean front. Problem with all this, is that you dumbass liberal constituents NEVER call out the elites out for their fucking hypocrisy, but wait for them to get close to you so you can kiss the hem of their pant suits...

 

[Taz]

It's already not ok.

No different than it's ever been.

Why would you care any way? You won't live forever.

I have children and care about leaving them a shithole, unlike you.

They aren't going to live forever either.

Just how bad do you think this is going to get?

I need to assess your level of emotionalism.

So since you won't live much longer, you don't care of the environment? That's very selfish of you. But not surprising.

you don't care of the environment?

So you go to the inner cities and see the trash that the liberals leave on the ground knowing someone else will pick it up. You watch the liberal elites jet around in their private jets expecting the rest of us to stay home. Liberal elites ride around in their limos doing award this and award that, creating enough CO2 equal to a large city, yet they tell us to cut back on our energy usage or else the oceans will rise up and drown those very people who buy mansions on the ocean front. Problem with all this, is that you dumbass liberal constituents NEVER call out the elites out for their fucking hypocrisy, but wait for them to get close to you so you can kiss the hem of their pant suits...

Your record is broken, time for a new one.

 

[ding]

You better tell them to move, Taz.

Relax. It's going to be ok, bro.

It's already not ok.

No different than it's ever been.

Why would you care any way? You won't live forever.

I have children and care about leaving them a shithole, unlike you.

They aren't going to live forever either.

Just how bad do you think this is going to get?

I need to assess your level of emotionalism.

So since you won't live much longer, you don't care of the environment? That's very selfish of you. But not surprising.

Actually it has to do with your flawed world view. You have no reason to care because according to your worldview there is no grand meaning to any of this.

 

[ding]

You better tell them to move, Taz.

Relax. It's going to be ok, bro.

It's already not ok.

No different than it's ever been.

Why would you care any way? You won't live forever.

I have children and care about leaving them a shithole, unlike you.

They aren't going to live forever either.

Just how bad do you think this is going to get?

I need to assess your level of emotionalism.

So since you won't live much longer, you don't care of the environment? That's very selfish of you. But not surprising.

I assess your emotional level as high.

Why is it wrong to be selfish again?

What does that matter?

 

[Pete7469]

And ~5 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was >400 ppm and we transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. So what is your point?

That changes that happen over millions of years are different than changes that happen over decades, but you guys think Jay-a-zus has a plan or something, fuck that science stuff.

So atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm that preceded the glacial cycles is irrelevant?

But atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm today that you believe leads to a greenhouse planet, isn't?

They really are that stupid.