Scientist discovers errors in global warming model

[paulitician]

Listen, the Sun is great, without the sun most life on the Earth would not exist. Are you saying this is PROOF that the Sun doesn't cause skin cancer which can kill people?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to listen to crap arguments that claim because humans exhale CO2 that CO2 in excessive quantities isn't a bad thing for the atmosphere. This isn't grade one and I'm not an idiot.

'Global Warming/Climate Change', whatever you're pushing these days, isn't gonna cause a sudden grand Apocalypse y'all envision. It's fear mongering nonsense. It's all to frighten people into supporting a particular agenda. The climate will continue to change, and we'll survive. It is what it is.






No, you clearly ARE an idiot. If you go into a room that is 100% CO2 you will die of asphyxiation. However, we are talking about a concentration of CO2 that is so low that it takes incredibly sensitive machines to even detect its presence. What is also a certainty is the desperate attempts by the crap scientists you listen too to ascribe every single bad thing that occurs in the world to this essential gas.

There is ZERO evidence that anything they claim will occur. ZERO. There is ample evidence that supports the exact opposite of what they claim however. You need only open your eyes and read the history. But idiots don't do that. Do they...

They have absolutely no scientific evidence supporting their claim that higher CO2 levels and warmer climates will spell the end of animal and plant life. The historical climate record actually shows the exact opposite of their claims.

Animal and plant life thrive during periods of high CO2 levels and warm climates. So their whole 'Greenhouse Effect' argument crumbles under closer examination.

I for one am not suggesting it will be the end to animal and plant life at all. So..... why are you saying that we need to prove something we're not talking about?

You're pushing a 'Global Warming Apocalypse.' And i'm calling Bullshite on it. Simple as that.

You're making stuff up, claiming people are saying something they're no.

So you're calling bullshite by fighting a ghost. Well done.

 

[flacaltenn]

Frigid we got lucky, we flourished right after the last Ice age, the glaciers have been melting ever since, We we're at the right place at the right time.

°Shrugs°

This circle was going to happen no matter if we were here or not. To say man could stabilize the earth is preposterous..

Do you seriously think we could with a straight face?

There are two circles. The first is the natural one. The other is one we're creating and we can't control.

As I said, the planet is getting more stable. We're making it unstable.

Man hasn't stabilized the Earth, the Earth has done it itself. Should we be changing this?

The earth was getting more stable???

Please explain that one to us (I have to hear this one)

Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further.

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.

CO2 levels dropped largely because the Ice Ages bound up all the Natural carbon exchange between ocean, land and atmosphere. And nothing much was LIVING during that period. CO2 is largely an indicator of LIFE on the planet. Since it's part of the combustion system of every living thing..

 

[Wyatt earp]

Frigid we got lucky, we flourished right after the last Ice age, the glaciers have been melting ever since, We we're at the right place at the right time.

°Shrugs°

This circle was going to happen no matter if we were here or not. To say man could stabilize the earth is preposterous..

Do you seriously think we could with a straight face?

There are two circles. The first is the natural one. The other is one we're creating and we can't control.

As I said, the planet is getting more stable. We're making it unstable.

Man hasn't stabilized the Earth, the Earth has done it itself. Should we be changing this?

The earth was getting more stable???

Please explain that one to us (I have to hear this one)

Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further.

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.

CO2 levels dropped largely because the Ice Ages bound up all the Natural carbon exchange between ocean, land and atmosphere. And nothing much was LIVING during that period. CO2 is largely an indicator of LIFE on the planet. Since it's part of the combustion system of every living thing..

Well that's common sense, forgot to even think that way, dinos all gone, earth an ice ball, of course the C02 would come down.

 

[paulitician]

Frigid we got lucky, we flourished right after the last Ice age, the glaciers have been melting ever since, We we're at the right place at the right time.

°Shrugs°

This circle was going to happen no matter if we were here or not. To say man could stabilize the earth is preposterous..

Do you seriously think we could with a straight face?

There are two circles. The first is the natural one. The other is one we're creating and we can't control.

As I said, the planet is getting more stable. We're making it unstable.

Man hasn't stabilized the Earth, the Earth has done it itself. Should we be changing this?

The earth was getting more stable???

Please explain that one to us (I have to hear this one)

Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further.

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.

CO2 levels dropped largely because the Ice Ages bound up all the Natural carbon exchange between ocean, land and atmosphere. And nothing much was LIVING during that period. CO2 is largely an indicator of LIFE on the planet. Since it's part of the combustion system of every living thing..

Of course. Their 'Greenhouse Effect' argument crumbles under closer scrutiny. Does anyone fear Greenhouses? Obviously not, they give life.

 

[westwall]

CO2 is not pollution. Some of the other byproducts of combustion are pollutants but not CO2. It's plant food. You are confused by guilt by association.

CO2 levels through the next several doublings is well within the natural range of CO2 historically. Not a pollutant.

Well you must be one of the few people who think that CO2 isn't pollution. It is, by the way, you're just deluding yourself.

A plastic bag in a supermarket isn't pollution. But in the pacific ocean it is.

CO2 is in the air, in it's normal amounts it isn't pollution. When there's too much of it, it is pollution. It's a simple concept, one that high school kids are often able to pick up and understand. Maybe once you've graduated from high school you'll understand. Maybe.

hahahahahaha. give some thought as to what the normal range of CO2 is. for different areas, different seasons, etc. the 120 ppm increase over the last coupla hundred years is nothing. but the plants sure like it.

graduate high school! hahahahahahaha

The plants sure like it. The oceans sure don't.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Increasing acidity is thought to have a range of possibly harmful consequences, such as depressing metabolic rates and immune responses in some organisms, and causing coral bleaching. This also causes decreasing oxygen levels as it kills offalgae."

Bullshit. Here is a far more balanced look at the so called ocean acidification "problem". The reality is we as a species could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the result would be to drop the oceans pH from an average of 8.1 to 8.0. Still very alkaline. Every bit of empirical research has shown that corals and other hard shelled critters grow THICKER shells in the presence of even ridiculously high levels of acidic water. In one experiment they had acid levels many times what would EVER be experienced in the real world. Guess what...the shells grew thicker.

Anytime someone is trying to scare the crap out of you so that you will give up your freedoms and your hard earned cahs you should ask yourself who gets the money. Overwhelmingly it is ultra rich bankers andultra rich politicians who stand to reap the biggest reward. Furthermore a thinking person would wonder why it is OK to pollute if the situation was so dire the world would be MANDATING a cut in pollution, but no.... there is no mandate to cut. There is merely a fee attached. You can still pollute, you just have to pay a fee to some ultra rich dude.

And you brainless twits can never seem to figure that out.


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/acid_test.pdf


In CO2-rich Environment, Some Ocean Dwellers Increase Shell Production

Insulting again huh? Maybe try another approach because you're going on ignore.

How sad for you that you can't put me on ignore. I insult stupidity, it's a problem I have I admit it, but I am old so have little patience with ignorant people who seemingly revel in their ignorance. Now, how about you address the facts I presented or are they too damaging to your psyche?

 

[IanC]

Well you must be one of the few people who think that CO2 isn't pollution. It is, by the way, you're just deluding yourself.

A plastic bag in a supermarket isn't pollution. But in the pacific ocean it is.

CO2 is in the air, in it's normal amounts it isn't pollution. When there's too much of it, it is pollution. It's a simple concept, one that high school kids are often able to pick up and understand. Maybe once you've graduated from high school you'll understand. Maybe.

hahahahahaha. give some thought as to what the normal range of CO2 is. for different areas, different seasons, etc. the 120 ppm increase over the last coupla hundred years is nothing. but the plants sure like it.

graduate high school! hahahahahahaha

The plants sure like it. The oceans sure don't.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Increasing acidity is thought to have a range of possibly harmful consequences, such as depressing metabolic rates and immune responses in some organisms, and causing coral bleaching. This also causes decreasing oxygen levels as it kills offalgae."

Bullshit. Here is a far more balanced look at the so called ocean acidification "problem". The reality is we as a species could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the result would be to drop the oceans pH from an average of 8.1 to 8.0. Still very alkaline. Every bit of empirical research has shown that corals and other hard shelled critters grow THICKER shells in the presence of even ridiculously high levels of acidic water. In one experiment they had acid levels many times what would EVER be experienced in the real world. Guess what...the shells grew thicker.

Anytime someone is trying to scare the crap out of you so that you will give up your freedoms and your hard earned cahs you should ask yourself who gets the money. Overwhelmingly it is ultra rich bankers andultra rich politicians who stand to reap the biggest reward. Furthermore a thinking person would wonder why it is OK to pollute if the situation was so dire the world would be MANDATING a cut in pollution, but no.... there is no mandate to cut. There is merely a fee attached. You can still pollute, you just have to pay a fee to some ultra rich dude.

And you brainless twits can never seem to figure that out.


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/acid_test.pdf


In CO2-rich Environment, Some Ocean Dwellers Increase Shell Production

Insulting again huh? Maybe try another approach because you're going on ignore.

How sad for you that you can't put me on ignore. I insult stupidity, it's a problem I have I admit it, but I am old so have little patience with ignorant people who seemingly revel in their ignorance. Now, how about you address the facts I presented or are they too damaging to your psyche?

I too have little patience for stupidity, especially the overconfident variety.

 

[Old Rocks]

Frigid we got lucky, we flourished right after the last Ice age, the glaciers have been melting ever since, We we're at the right place at the right time.

°Shrugs°

This circle was going to happen no matter if we were here or not. To say man could stabilize the earth is preposterous..

Do you seriously think we could with a straight face?

There are two circles. The first is the natural one. The other is one we're creating and we can't control.

As I said, the planet is getting more stable. We're making it unstable.

Man hasn't stabilized the Earth, the Earth has done it itself. Should we be changing this?

The earth was getting more stable???

Please explain that one to us (I have to hear this one)

Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further.

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.

CO2 levels dropped largely because the Ice Ages bound up all the Natural carbon exchange between ocean, land and atmosphere. And nothing much was LIVING during that period. CO2 is largely an indicator of LIFE on the planet. Since it's part of the combustion system of every living thing..

CO2 levels dropped because the oceans were significantly colder, and cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water. The changes in the Milankovic Cycles started warming the southern ocean, which emitted CO2, which increased the warming. Also much carbon was buried on land by the continental glaciers.

Glacial-interglacial atmospheric CO2 change —The glacial burial hypothesis - Springer

Abstract
Organic carbon buried under the great ice sheets of the Northern Hemisphere is suggested to be the missing link in the atmospheric CO2 change over the glacial-interglacial cycles. At glaciation, the advancement of continental ice sheets buries vegetation and soil carbon accumulated during warmer periods. At deglaciation, this burial carbon is released back into the atmosphere. In a simulation over two glacial-interglacial cycles using a synchronously coupled atmosphere-land-ocean carbon model forced by reconstructed climate change, it is found that there is a 547-Gt terrestrial carbon release from glacial maximum to interglacial, resulting in a 60-Gt (about 30-ppmv) increase in the atmospheric CO2, with the remainder absorbed by the ocean in a scenario in which ocean acts as a passive buffer. This is in contrast to previous estimates of a land uptake at deglaciation. This carbon source originates from glacial burial, continental shelf, and other land areas in response to changes in ice cover, sea level, and climate. The input of light isotope enriched terrestrial carbon causes atmospheric δ13C to drop by about 0.3‰ at deglaciation, followed by a rapid rise towards a high interglacial value in response to oceanic warming and regrowth on land. Together with other ocean based mechanisms such as change in ocean temperature, the glacial burial hypothesis may offer a full explanation of the observed 80–100-ppmv atmospheric CO2 change.

There was plenty of life south of the ice line. Expecially in North America. Huge lakes in Oregon, California, and Nevada. Actually more differant species then than live here today. Quite a lot went extinct during the Younger Dryas.

 

[westwall]

Frigid we got lucky, we flourished right after the last Ice age, the glaciers have been melting ever since, We we're at the right place at the right time.

°Shrugs°

This circle was going to happen no matter if we were here or not. To say man could stabilize the earth is preposterous..

Do you seriously think we could with a straight face?

There are two circles. The first is the natural one. The other is one we're creating and we can't control.

As I said, the planet is getting more stable. We're making it unstable.

Man hasn't stabilized the Earth, the Earth has done it itself. Should we be changing this?

The earth was getting more stable???

Please explain that one to us (I have to hear this one)

Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further.

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.

CO2 levels dropped largely because the Ice Ages bound up all the Natural carbon exchange between ocean, land and atmosphere. And nothing much was LIVING during that period. CO2 is largely an indicator of LIFE on the planet. Since it's part of the combustion system of every living thing..

CO2 levels dropped because the oceans were significantly colder, and cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water. The changes in the Milankovic Cycles started warming the southern ocean, which emitted CO2, which increased the warming. Also much carbon was buried on land by the continental glaciers.

Glacial-interglacial atmospheric CO2 change —The glacial burial hypothesis - Springer

Abstract
Organic carbon buried under the great ice sheets of the Northern Hemisphere is suggested to be the missing link in the atmospheric CO2 change over the glacial-interglacial cycles. At glaciation, the advancement of continental ice sheets buries vegetation and soil carbon accumulated during warmer periods. At deglaciation, this burial carbon is released back into the atmosphere. In a simulation over two glacial-interglacial cycles using a synchronously coupled atmosphere-land-ocean carbon model forced by reconstructed climate change, it is found that there is a 547-Gt terrestrial carbon release from glacial maximum to interglacial, resulting in a 60-Gt (about 30-ppmv) increase in the atmospheric CO2, with the remainder absorbed by the ocean in a scenario in which ocean acts as a passive buffer. This is in contrast to previous estimates of a land uptake at deglaciation. This carbon source originates from glacial burial, continental shelf, and other land areas in response to changes in ice cover, sea level, and climate. The input of light isotope enriched terrestrial carbon causes atmospheric δ13C to drop by about 0.3‰ at deglaciation, followed by a rapid rise towards a high interglacial value in response to oceanic warming and regrowth on land. Together with other ocean based mechanisms such as change in ocean temperature, the glacial burial hypothesis may offer a full explanation of the observed 80–100-ppmv atmospheric CO2 change.

There was plenty of life south of the ice line. Expecially in North America. Huge lakes in Oregon, California, and Nevada. Actually more differant species then than live here today. Quite a lot went extinct during the Younger Dryas.

Yet there was significantly less life than when ice didn't cover such a huge portion of the land surface. There were orders of magnitude more life prior to the ice ages.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Frigid we got lucky, we flourished right after the last Ice age, the glaciers have been melting ever since, We we're at the right place at the right time.

°Shrugs°

This circle was going to happen no matter if we were here or not. To say man could stabilize the earth is preposterous..

Do you seriously think we could with a straight face?

There are two circles. The first is the natural one. The other is one we're creating and we can't control.

As I said, the planet is getting more stable. We're making it unstable.

Man hasn't stabilized the Earth, the Earth has done it itself. Should we be changing this?

The earth was getting more stable???

Please explain that one to us (I have to hear this one)

Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further.

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.

CO2 levels dropped largely because the Ice Ages bound up all the Natural carbon exchange between ocean, land and atmosphere. And nothing much was LIVING during that period. CO2 is largely an indicator of LIFE on the planet. Since it's part of the combustion system of every living thing..

CO2 levels dropped because the oceans were significantly colder, and cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water. The changes in the Milankovic Cycles started warming the southern ocean, which emitted CO2, which increased the warming. Also much carbon was buried on land by the continental glaciers.

Glacial-interglacial atmospheric CO2 change —The glacial burial hypothesis - Springer

Abstract
Organic carbon buried under the great ice sheets of the Northern Hemisphere is suggested to be the missing link in the atmospheric CO2 change over the glacial-interglacial cycles. At glaciation, the advancement of continental ice sheets buries vegetation and soil carbon accumulated during warmer periods. At deglaciation, this burial carbon is released back into the atmosphere. In a simulation over two glacial-interglacial cycles using a synchronously coupled atmosphere-land-ocean carbon model forced by reconstructed climate change, it is found that there is a 547-Gt terrestrial carbon release from glacial maximum to interglacial, resulting in a 60-Gt (about 30-ppmv) increase in the atmospheric CO2, with the remainder absorbed by the ocean in a scenario in which ocean acts as a passive buffer. This is in contrast to previous estimates of a land uptake at deglaciation. This carbon source originates from glacial burial, continental shelf, and other land areas in response to changes in ice cover, sea level, and climate. The input of light isotope enriched terrestrial carbon causes atmospheric δ13C to drop by about 0.3‰ at deglaciation, followed by a rapid rise towards a high interglacial value in response to oceanic warming and regrowth on land. Together with other ocean based mechanisms such as change in ocean temperature, the glacial burial hypothesis may offer a full explanation of the observed 80–100-ppmv atmospheric CO2 change.

There was plenty of life south of the ice line. Expecially in North America. Huge lakes in Oregon, California, and Nevada. Actually more differant species then than live here today. Quite a lot went extinct during the Younger Dryas.

Informative old rocks, but you should edit it, you could get in trouble by posting the entire article

 

[flacaltenn]

There are two circles. The first is the natural one. The other is one we're creating and we can't control.

As I said, the planet is getting more stable. We're making it unstable.

Man hasn't stabilized the Earth, the Earth has done it itself. Should we be changing this?

The earth was getting more stable???

Please explain that one to us (I have to hear this one)

Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further.

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.

CO2 levels dropped largely because the Ice Ages bound up all the Natural carbon exchange between ocean, land and atmosphere. And nothing much was LIVING during that period. CO2 is largely an indicator of LIFE on the planet. Since it's part of the combustion system of every living thing..

CO2 levels dropped because the oceans were significantly colder, and cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water. The changes in the Milankovic Cycles started warming the southern ocean, which emitted CO2, which increased the warming. Also much carbon was buried on land by the continental glaciers.

Glacial-interglacial atmospheric CO2 change —The glacial burial hypothesis - Springer

Abstract
Organic carbon buried under the great ice sheets of the Northern Hemisphere is suggested to be the missing link in the atmospheric CO2 change over the glacial-interglacial cycles. At glaciation, the advancement of continental ice sheets buries vegetation and soil carbon accumulated during warmer periods. At deglaciation, this burial carbon is released back into the atmosphere. In a simulation over two glacial-interglacial cycles using a synchronously coupled atmosphere-land-ocean carbon model forced by reconstructed climate change, it is found that there is a 547-Gt terrestrial carbon release from glacial maximum to interglacial, resulting in a 60-Gt (about 30-ppmv) increase in the atmospheric CO2, with the remainder absorbed by the ocean in a scenario in which ocean acts as a passive buffer. This is in contrast to previous estimates of a land uptake at deglaciation. This carbon source originates from glacial burial, continental shelf, and other land areas in response to changes in ice cover, sea level, and climate. The input of light isotope enriched terrestrial carbon causes atmospheric δ13C to drop by about 0.3‰ at deglaciation, followed by a rapid rise towards a high interglacial value in response to oceanic warming and regrowth on land. Together with other ocean based mechanisms such as change in ocean temperature, the glacial burial hypothesis may offer a full explanation of the observed 80–100-ppmv atmospheric CO2 change.

There was plenty of life south of the ice line. Expecially in North America. Huge lakes in Oregon, California, and Nevada. Actually more differant species then than live here today. Quite a lot went extinct during the Younger Dryas.

Informative old rocks, but you should edit it, you could get in trouble by posting the entire article

Abstracts are OK.. They are often provided for free when the papers are behind a paywall. It's meant to be a summary of the protected work..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Every group that hopes to profit either monetarily, or politically has claimed that CO2 is a "pollutant". What is not in question is that EVERY LIVING THING EXHALES CO2. What is also not in question is the fact that CO2 is the bottom of the food chain. All life on this planet ultimately derives from CO2 so the claim that it is a pollutant is absurd.

Listen, the Sun is great, without the sun most life on the Earth would not exist. Are you saying this is PROOF that the Sun doesn't cause skin cancer which can kill people?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to listen to crap arguments that claim because humans exhale CO2 that CO2 in excessive quantities isn't a bad thing for the atmosphere. This isn't grade one and I'm not an idiot.

CO2 is not pollution. Some of the other byproducts of combustion are pollutants but not CO2. It's plant food. You are confused by guilt by association.

CO2 levels through the next several doublings is well within the natural range of CO2 historically. Not a pollutant.

Well you must be one of the few people who think that CO2 isn't pollution. It is, by the way, you're just deluding yourself.

A plastic bag in a supermarket isn't pollution. But in the pacific ocean it is.

CO2 is in the air, in it's normal amounts it isn't pollution. When there's too much of it, it is pollution. It's a simple concept, one that high school kids are often able to pick up and understand. Maybe once you've graduated from high school you'll understand. Maybe.

ok going with that, what is too much? Do you have any knowledge on how much is too much? Seems like you're off course captain. You should first learn how much is too much if you wish to make that claim. BTW, CO2 is not a pollutant. We exhale it. comprehende?

Too much is more than there should be. Too much is when the climate starts to change because we've put more up there. Too much is when we're having an impact when we shouldn't be.

Listen, if you're going to keep going with this silly "we exhale CO2 therefore it's not a pollutant" then we're not going to be able to talk. You have to understand what stuff is to be able to talk about a complex issue, instead of either A) just taking the piss and B) being extremely ignorant.

Some things are fact.

Let's try some basic English

pollution: definition of pollution in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects:"

More CO2 into the atmosphere is harmful because it increases the greenhouse effect.

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Something basic for you

"Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas. Burning of carbon-based fuels since the industrial revolution has rapidly increased its concentration in the atmosphere, leading to global warming. It is also a major cause of ocean acidification since it dissolves in water to form carbonic acid.[7]"

"Carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean to form carbonic acid (H2CO3), bicarbonate (HCO3−) and carbonate (CO32−). There is about fifty times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans as exists in the atmosphere. The oceans act as an enormous carbon sink, and have taken up about a third of CO2 emitted by human activity.[52]"

"As the concentration of carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, the increased uptake of carbon dioxide into the oceans is causing a measurable decrease in the pH of the oceans, which is referred to as ocean acidification. "

"This reduction in pH affects biological systems in the oceans, primarily oceanic calcifying organisms. These effects span thefood chain from autotrophs to heterotrophs and include organisms such as coccolithophores, corals, foraminifera, echinoderms, crustaceans and mollusks. Under normal conditions, calcium carbonate is stable in surface waters since the carbonate ion is at supersaturating concentrations. However, as ocean pH falls, so does the concentration of this ion, and when carbonate becomes undersaturated, structures made of calcium carbonate are vulnerable to dissolution.[53] Corals,[54][55][56] coccolithophore algae,[57][58][59][60]coralline algae,[61] foraminifera,[62]shellfish[63] and pteropods[64] experience reduced calcification or enhanced dissolution when exposed to elevated CO2"

So, the biggest impact so far is in the oceans. We're basically polluting so much that the oceans are experiencing ocean acidification, which is destroying ocean eco systems, destroying food chains, and basically having an extremely negative effect on what is there.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Current rates of ocean acidification have been compared with the greenhouse event at the Paleocene–Eocene boundary (about 55 million years ago) when surface ocean temperatures rose by 5–6 degrees Celsius. No catastrophe was seen in surface ecosystems, yet bottom-dwelling organisms in the deep ocean experienced a major extinction. "

"The current acidification is on a path to reach levels higher than any seen in the last 65 million years,[39] and the rate of increase is about ten times the rate that preceded the Paleocene–Eocene mass extinction. "

The Earth has become more stable recently. This has allowed the development of human beings. Before the Earth would be trying to regulate itself and would go up and down and cause mass extinctions and temperature fluctuations which would take leading creatures and kill them off to be replaced by other creatures.
Humanity has increased because of this stability. We're changing this stability. We're destroying it. What do you think will happen to the leading creatures?

Lie after lie after lie...

You think you would get tired of the bull shit lies.. The earth has been stable for some 450 million years. Your narrow determination that our time on earth is the most ideal and is the way it should be is totally ludicrous. Your ego is so grand that you think you can command the earths systems.

Frigid we got lucky, we flourished right after the last Ice age, the glaciers have been melting ever since, We we're at the right place at the right time.

°Shrugs°

This circle was going to happen no matter if we were here or not. To say man could stabilize the earth is preposterous..

Do you seriously think we could with a straight face?

There are two circles. The first is the natural one. The other is one we're creating and we can't control.

As I said, the planet is getting more stable. We're making it unstable.

Man hasn't stabilized the Earth, the Earth has done it itself. Should we be changing this?

The earth was getting more stable???

Please explain that one to us (I have to hear this one)

Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further.

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.

You really are clueless..

Your own graph disproves your claims and your AGW hyperbole. The earth has remained stable, within its known temperature range of +/- 6 deg C for over 450 billion years. That's right the range is 12 deg C. And you morons are worried about 0.67 deg C change in 150 years.

Secondly the amount of CO2 has ranged from around 7,900ppm to near zero. Plant life ceases to operate when CO2 levels reach around 250ppm. The average CO2 level for the earth is around 1795ppm. At those rates of CO2 in our atmosphere the planets temperature has NEVER GONE OUT OF CONTROL because CO2 has little to no effect due to WATER VAPOR which acts as a negative forcing.

I gave you empirical evidence which support this and you ignored it. Funny how you alarmists ignore FACTS which show your religion fantasy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Frigid we got lucky, we flourished right after the last Ice age, the glaciers have been melting ever since, We we're at the right place at the right time.

°Shrugs°

This circle was going to happen no matter if we were here or not. To say man could stabilize the earth is preposterous..

Do you seriously think we could with a straight face?

There are two circles. The first is the natural one. The other is one we're creating and we can't control.

As I said, the planet is getting more stable. We're making it unstable.

Man hasn't stabilized the Earth, the Earth has done it itself. Should we be changing this?

The earth was getting more stable???

Please explain that one to us (I have to hear this one)

Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further.

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.

CO2 levels dropped largely because the Ice Ages bound up all the Natural carbon exchange between ocean, land and atmosphere. And nothing much was LIVING during that period. CO2 is largely an indicator of LIFE on the planet. Since it's part of the combustion system of every living thing..

And therefore the point that was being made is that the Earth is now more stable. Would you agree with this?

Would you also agree that human interference threatens this stability?

 

[flacaltenn]

Frigid we got lucky, we flourished right after the last Ice age, the glaciers have been melting ever since, We we're at the right place at the right time.

°Shrugs°

This circle was going to happen no matter if we were here or not. To say man could stabilize the earth is preposterous..

Do you seriously think we could with a straight face?

There are two circles. The first is the natural one. The other is one we're creating and we can't control.

As I said, the planet is getting more stable. We're making it unstable.

Man hasn't stabilized the Earth, the Earth has done it itself. Should we be changing this?

The earth was getting more stable???

Please explain that one to us (I have to hear this one)

Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further.

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.

CO2 levels dropped largely because the Ice Ages bound up all the Natural carbon exchange between ocean, land and atmosphere. And nothing much was LIVING during that period. CO2 is largely an indicator of LIFE on the planet. Since it's part of the combustion system of every living thing..

And therefore the point that was being made is that the Earth is now more stable. Would you agree with this?

Would you also agree that human interference threatens this stability?

Actually no. I couldn't agree to that. And I'm not dissing you for believing that. But on a timescale that matters to climate -- this planet has been oscillating in and out of MAJOR glacial periods in just it's RECENT history. And the warm times are CONSIDERABLY shorter than the cold times. FOUR TIMES in recent past history. So the odds are -- it's by every scientific and engineering definition in an unstable state. BUT --- maybe this oscillation is what's left of the more violent and magnified extremes that existed in it's early development. So in a sense -- it's MATURED -- but I wouldn't bet there isn't gonna be a fairly regular 5th or 6th Ice Age in the future.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually no. I couldn't agree to that. And I'm not dissing you for believing that. But on a timescale that matters to climate -- this planet has been oscillating in and out of MAJOR glacial periods in just it's RECENT history. And the warm times are CONSIDERABLY shorter than the cold times. FOUR TIMES in recent past history. So the odds are -- it's by every scientific and engineering definition in an unstable state. BUT --- maybe this oscillation is what's left of the more violent and magnified extremes that existed in it's early development. So in a sense -- it's MATURED -- but I wouldn't bet there isn't gonna be a fairly regular 5th or 6th Ice Age in the future.

The chart that I presented shows that yes, the Earth goes up and down. That is stability. It's just that the ups and downs are far less catastrophic than they have been in the past. Before the rise and fall in temperatures was far, far wider than they are now.

I'm not saying that temperatures are stable within a few degrees every year, year on year for hundreds of thousands of years. I'm saying they're much more stable than they were before, stable to the point where humans have been able to develop as we have done.

So, you call it "matured", whatever, same thing. Sure, there might be an ice age in the future, well, doesn't look likely if we keep on the path we're going. Would an ice age be such a bad thing, really?

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually no. I couldn't agree to that. And I'm not dissing you for believing that. But on a timescale that matters to climate -- this planet has been oscillating in and out of MAJOR glacial periods in just it's RECENT history. And the warm times are CONSIDERABLY shorter than the cold times. FOUR TIMES in recent past history. So the odds are -- it's by every scientific and engineering definition in an unstable state. BUT --- maybe this oscillation is what's left of the more violent and magnified extremes that existed in it's early development. So in a sense -- it's MATURED -- but I wouldn't bet there isn't gonna be a fairly regular 5th or 6th Ice Age in the future.

The chart that I presented shows that yes, the Earth goes up and down. That is stability. It's just that the ups and downs are far less catastrophic than they have been in the past. Before the rise and fall in temperatures was far, far wider than they are now.

I'm not saying that temperatures are stable within a few degrees every year, year on year for hundreds of thousands of years. I'm saying they're much more stable than they were before, stable to the point where humans have been able to develop as we have done.

So, you call it "matured", whatever, same thing. Sure, there might be an ice age in the future, well, doesn't look likely if we keep on the path we're going. Would an ice age be such a bad thing, really?

Stability means something else in science/engineering. If a system is REPEATING a pattern over and over again -- it is oscillating and declared instable. So it COULD be semantics. The CAUSE of those oscillations is fairly well agreed upon and WILL likely repeat. Could be that a little influence from man might be prolonging our "nice" climate into the next millenium.. Have you considered that possibility?

 

[Billy_Bob]

There are two circles. The first is the natural one. The other is one we're creating and we can't control.

As I said, the planet is getting more stable. We're making it unstable.

Man hasn't stabilized the Earth, the Earth has done it itself. Should we be changing this?

The earth was getting more stable???

Please explain that one to us (I have to hear this one)

Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further.

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.

CO2 levels dropped largely because the Ice Ages bound up all the Natural carbon exchange between ocean, land and atmosphere. And nothing much was LIVING during that period. CO2 is largely an indicator of LIFE on the planet. Since it's part of the combustion system of every living thing..

And therefore the point that was being made is that the Earth is now more stable. Would you agree with this?

Would you also agree that human interference threatens this stability?

Actually no. I couldn't agree to that. And I'm not dissing you for believing that. But on a timescale that matters to climate -- this planet has been oscillating in and out of MAJOR glacial periods in just it's RECENT history. And the warm times are CONSIDERABLY shorter than the cold times. FOUR TIMES in recent past history. So the odds are -- it's by every scientific and engineering definition in an unstable state. BUT --- maybe this oscillation is what's left of the more violent and magnified extremes that existed in it's early development. So in a sense -- it's MATURED -- but I wouldn't bet there isn't gonna be a fairly regular 5th or 6th Ice Age in the future.

The last four hundred and fifty thousand years have been pertty regular in their oscillations.

Our interglacial is about over if it is not already as each time we flip into glacial phase we have a peak spike. The spatial resolution of 500 year plots cant show the real levels of CO2 at the time of spike but the temperatures spikes are well documented. The spike on the end of this graph is really a point out of context.

Our current CO2 spike is most likely normal cyclical response and natural variation. from the empirical evidence this has all happened before many times.

 

[flacaltenn]

The earth was getting more stable???

Please explain that one to us (I have to hear this one)

Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further.

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.

CO2 levels dropped largely because the Ice Ages bound up all the Natural carbon exchange between ocean, land and atmosphere. And nothing much was LIVING during that period. CO2 is largely an indicator of LIFE on the planet. Since it's part of the combustion system of every living thing..

And therefore the point that was being made is that the Earth is now more stable. Would you agree with this?

Would you also agree that human interference threatens this stability?

Actually no. I couldn't agree to that. And I'm not dissing you for believing that. But on a timescale that matters to climate -- this planet has been oscillating in and out of MAJOR glacial periods in just it's RECENT history. And the warm times are CONSIDERABLY shorter than the cold times. FOUR TIMES in recent past history. So the odds are -- it's by every scientific and engineering definition in an unstable state. BUT --- maybe this oscillation is what's left of the more violent and magnified extremes that existed in it's early development. So in a sense -- it's MATURED -- but I wouldn't bet there isn't gonna be a fairly regular 5th or 6th Ice Age in the future.

The last four hundred and fifty thousand years have been pertty regular in their oscillations. View attachment 53134

Our interglacial is about over if it is not already as each time we flip into glacial phase we have a peak spike. The spatial resolution of 500 year plots cant show the real levels of CO2 at the time of spike but the temperatures spikes are well documented. The spike on the end of this graph is really a point out of context.

Our current CO2 spike is most likely normal cyclical response and natural variation. from the empirical evidence this has all happened before many times.

FunTime's almost over if you read that chart literally. The spike at the end is WAAAY out of context because ice cores on that scale will NEVER have enough resolution to show 60 or 100 years blips in temperature. I GUARANTEE other interglacial optimums had temperatures similar to ours at one time or the other.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further.

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.

CO2 levels dropped largely because the Ice Ages bound up all the Natural carbon exchange between ocean, land and atmosphere. And nothing much was LIVING during that period. CO2 is largely an indicator of LIFE on the planet. Since it's part of the combustion system of every living thing..

And therefore the point that was being made is that the Earth is now more stable. Would you agree with this?

Would you also agree that human interference threatens this stability?

Actually no. I couldn't agree to that. And I'm not dissing you for believing that. But on a timescale that matters to climate -- this planet has been oscillating in and out of MAJOR glacial periods in just it's RECENT history. And the warm times are CONSIDERABLY shorter than the cold times. FOUR TIMES in recent past history. So the odds are -- it's by every scientific and engineering definition in an unstable state. BUT --- maybe this oscillation is what's left of the more violent and magnified extremes that existed in it's early development. So in a sense -- it's MATURED -- but I wouldn't bet there isn't gonna be a fairly regular 5th or 6th Ice Age in the future.

The last four hundred and fifty thousand years have been pertty regular in their oscillations. View attachment 53134

Our interglacial is about over if it is not already as each time we flip into glacial phase we have a peak spike. The spatial resolution of 500 year plots cant show the real levels of CO2 at the time of spike but the temperatures spikes are well documented. The spike on the end of this graph is really a point out of context.

Our current CO2 spike is most likely normal cyclical response and natural variation. from the empirical evidence this has all happened before many times.

FunTime's almost over if you read that chart literally. The spike at the end is WAAAY out of context because ice cores on that scale will NEVER have enough resolution to show 60 or 100 years blips in temperature. I GUARANTEE other interglacial optimums had temperatures similar to ours at one time or the other.

Were at 11,600 years for the current interglacial. When you consider the last four have averaged just 9,500 years were living on borrowed heat... The longest being 12,500 years and the shortest being just 7,500 years.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually no. I couldn't agree to that. And I'm not dissing you for believing that. But on a timescale that matters to climate -- this planet has been oscillating in and out of MAJOR glacial periods in just it's RECENT history. And the warm times are CONSIDERABLY shorter than the cold times. FOUR TIMES in recent past history. So the odds are -- it's by every scientific and engineering definition in an unstable state. BUT --- maybe this oscillation is what's left of the more violent and magnified extremes that existed in it's early development. So in a sense -- it's MATURED -- but I wouldn't bet there isn't gonna be a fairly regular 5th or 6th Ice Age in the future.

The chart that I presented shows that yes, the Earth goes up and down. That is stability. It's just that the ups and downs are far less catastrophic than they have been in the past. Before the rise and fall in temperatures was far, far wider than they are now.

I'm not saying that temperatures are stable within a few degrees every year, year on year for hundreds of thousands of years. I'm saying they're much more stable than they were before, stable to the point where humans have been able to develop as we have done.

So, you call it "matured", whatever, same thing. Sure, there might be an ice age in the future, well, doesn't look likely if we keep on the path we're going. Would an ice age be such a bad thing, really?

Stability means something else in science/engineering. If a system is REPEATING a pattern over and over again -- it is oscillating and declared instable. So it COULD be semantics. The CAUSE of those oscillations is fairly well agreed upon and WILL likely repeat. Could be that a little influence from man might be prolonging our "nice" climate into the next millenium.. Have you considered that possibility?

Yes, I have considered this. And I've also considered that we could be putting in place something which destroys everything.

Now, the point here is, when you go into the unknown, do you jump in with swim suit, googles and swimming hat, or do you stick you little toe in and check to see if there's water in the pool, or if it's empty, or if it's full of poison etc?

I'd say caution is the only way you can proceed. However man made climate change deniers want us to just jump in (knowing they'll probably be dead by the time the shit hits the fan.)

 

[Billy_Bob]

Actually no. I couldn't agree to that. And I'm not dissing you for believing that. But on a timescale that matters to climate -- this planet has been oscillating in and out of MAJOR glacial periods in just it's RECENT history. And the warm times are CONSIDERABLY shorter than the cold times. FOUR TIMES in recent past history. So the odds are -- it's by every scientific and engineering definition in an unstable state. BUT --- maybe this oscillation is what's left of the more violent and magnified extremes that existed in it's early development. So in a sense -- it's MATURED -- but I wouldn't bet there isn't gonna be a fairly regular 5th or 6th Ice Age in the future.

The chart that I presented shows that yes, the Earth goes up and down. That is stability. It's just that the ups and downs are far less catastrophic than they have been in the past. Before the rise and fall in temperatures was far, far wider than they are now.

I'm not saying that temperatures are stable within a few degrees every year, year on year for hundreds of thousands of years. I'm saying they're much more stable than they were before, stable to the point where humans have been able to develop as we have done.

So, you call it "matured", whatever, same thing. Sure, there might be an ice age in the future, well, doesn't look likely if we keep on the path we're going. Would an ice age be such a bad thing, really?

Stability means something else in science/engineering. If a system is REPEATING a pattern over and over again -- it is oscillating and declared instable. So it COULD be semantics. The CAUSE of those oscillations is fairly well agreed upon and WILL likely repeat. Could be that a little influence from man might be prolonging our "nice" climate into the next millenium.. Have you considered that possibility?

Yes, I have considered this. And I've also considered that we could be putting in place something which destroys everything.

Now, the point here is, when you go into the unknown, do you jump in with swim suit, googles and swimming hat, or do you stick you little toe in and check to see if there's water in the pool, or if it's empty, or if it's full of poison etc?

I'd say caution is the only way you can proceed. However man made climate change deniers want us to just jump in (knowing they'll probably be dead by the time the shit hits the fan.)

Please show us empirical evidence to support your claims. Your current crop of models have failed to show any predictive capability and have failed so they are not worth the time to even look at and they are NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. They are fantasy and your basing your life choices on a fantasy?