Scientist discovers errors in global warming model

[frigidweirdo]

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.

There are two ends. Which end are you talking about?

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.)

Jump into what?

It seems to me the AGW cult ( you don't seem like one of them) is the one that wants to jump in/ not think what they were doing.

We seen that with the new EPA power plant regulation, where the Supremes blocked it because way to expensive

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/3...s-obamas-limits-on-power-plants.html?referer=

Or a judge blocking the EPA regulation on water ways



Federal judge blocks Obama’s water rule

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

There are two ends. Which end are you talking about?

The bottom of the graph shows "years before present" the number "0". Directly above it is the current "spike" which is a plot of less than 50 years. IF we averaged that spike into a 500 year plot the CO2 spike would not exist nor would the temperature spike you all are so worried about.

The point is this; when placed in proper perspective there is no emergency nor any reason to run around like chicken little screaming the sky is falling.

 

[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.)

Jump into what?

It seems to me the AGW cult ( you don't seem like one of them) is the one that wants to jump in/ not think what they were doing.

We seen that with the new EPA power plant regulation, where the Supremes blocked it because way to expensive

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/3...s-obamas-limits-on-power-plants.html?referer=

Or a judge blocking the EPA regulation on water ways



Federal judge blocks Obama’s water rule

Jumping into the UNKNOWN. Some might call it the future.

The funny thing is, conservatives, called conservatives because they're usually very cautious about change, are being extremely relaxed about change.

Could it be that they're not really worried about change at all, and it's all about money?

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.)

Jump into what?

It seems to me the AGW cult ( you don't seem like one of them) is the one that wants to jump in/ not think what they were doing.

We seen that with the new EPA power plant regulation, where the Supremes blocked it because way to expensive

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/3...s-obamas-limits-on-power-plants.html?referer=

Or a judge blocking the EPA regulation on water ways



Federal judge blocks Obama’s water rule

Jumping into the UNKNOWN. Some might call it the future.

The funny thing is, conservatives, called conservatives because they're usually very cautious about change, are being extremely relaxed about change.

Could it be that they're not really worried about change at all, and it's all about money?

Nope

Balance...

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.)

Jump into what?

It seems to me the AGW cult ( you don't seem like one of them) is the one that wants to jump in/ not think what they were doing.

We seen that with the new EPA power plant regulation, where the Supremes blocked it because way to expensive

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/3...s-obamas-limits-on-power-plants.html?referer=

Or a judge blocking the EPA regulation on water ways



Federal judge blocks Obama’s water rule

Jumping into the UNKNOWN. Some might call it the future.

The funny thing is, conservatives, called conservatives because they're usually very cautious about change, are being extremely relaxed about change.

Could it be that they're not really worried about change at all, and it's all about money?

Nope

Balance...

You're going to have to explain, I'm not a mind reader.

 

[jc456]

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.


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]"

So S0n, let's start here:
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.
How much is there supposed to be? You still haven't provided one piece of data that says we have too much CO2. do you have those figures?

Then, prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of any climate change. Can you do that? nope!!!

And lastly, go in a room full of CO2 and you'll die. Do you know why? No oxygen you fool. CO2 is not a pollutant and I'd really appreciate at it that you stop with calling it such. Carbon monoxide is a pollutant and is what comes from a car.

 

[jc456]

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.

How much is to much?

According to this article in the dino era Their was 2 times~5 times more C02 in the atmosphere then today

Dinosaur Era Had 5 Times Today's CO2

According to our New C02 satellite the hot spots for C02 is in the southern hemisphere


NASA Satellite Sends Back Most Detailed CO2 View Ever : DNews

Yeah, in the dinosaur eras there was a lot more. How many humans were there? Oh, er... none. Why do you think that is? Because they were all eaten by dinosaurs or the conditions for human life weren't right?

The dinosaurs died out, maybe they died out because there was a reduction in CO2.

Anyway, the Earth has regulated itself better now so we had the conditions to survive AND prosper.

We're destroying this stability. Do you think this is a good idea? The oceans will go first. We're killing the whole of the oceans. Fish will be more of a delicacy in the future, sea fish won't exist, river fish will be more expensive.

again making a speech without evidence in play. Come now fridge, post us up some numbers.

 

[jc456]

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?

Global modeling.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.


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]"

So S0n, let's start here:
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.
How much is there supposed to be? You still haven't provided one piece of data that says we have too much CO2. do you have those figures?

Then, prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of any climate change. Can you do that? nope!!!

And lastly, go in a room full of CO2 and you'll die. Do you know why? No oxygen you fool. CO2 is not a pollutant and I'd really appreciate at it that you stop with calling it such. Carbon monoxide is a pollutant and is what comes from a car.

Ya know what I find amusing, people always point to Venus as an example of a green house and imply C02

Yet ignore Mars, which is cold and its atmosphere is made up of 95% C02

 

[jc456]

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.

i just have to laugh at this old sock update on glacial-interglacial cycles. Exactly why is there more CO2 in the atmosphere today, ice melted. Not humans existed. holy crap batman, I don't understand idiot. I just don't.

 

[jc456]

so, as interesting as this all is, the facts are right now, all the leaves on the trees in the Northern central states are turning color and falling off. I hate raking. All the plant life in the soil is dying off or going dormant. CO2 in the air is the same right now as it is when the trees were full and green. Why'd they suddenly loose their leaves? Cold and do you know why it is cold, less sun. Funny when the earth axis changes and the daylight declines, it gets cold. It's been doing that since I've been alive 60 years. It will eventually snow and cover all of the remaining plant life. So zero CO2 discharge by plants.

The conditions stay in this state almost half a year in this region. Now when the axis tilts back and the daylight becomes longer, longer periods of sun, it will get warmer and eventually all the snow and ice will melt. But not until then. And all the CO2 you want to shit into the atmosphere ain't gonna change any of what I just posted.

Proving a modelling error doesn't seem that difficult given the fact of how the axis of the earth actually tilts and seasons change. Less sunlight, colder weather, it's why the Chicago climate is a cool climate. See when the axis tilts this way the same weather patterns occur. And there ain't one poster on this forum can change how the earth tilt occurs. Can you? Are you now going to say modeling can change the axis or humans that is?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.


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]"

So S0n, let's start here:
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.
How much is there supposed to be? You still haven't provided one piece of data that says we have too much CO2. do you have those figures?

Then, prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of any climate change. Can you do that? nope!!!

And lastly, go in a room full of CO2 and you'll die. Do you know why? No oxygen you fool. CO2 is not a pollutant and I'd really appreciate at it that you stop with calling it such. Carbon monoxide is a pollutant and is what comes from a car.

How much is there supposed to be? Well, here's the equation.

What is in the air naturally + what we stuff in the air = X

X - what we stuff in the air = is how much there is supposed to be.

Simple, right?

Of course you're not going to see that we have too much, because you don't care how much there is. You probably believe that 100% is okay, right?

However, to prove there's too much we only need look at the oceans to see that the PH levels of the oceans are dropping because of all the CO2 there is in the air. This is killing the oceans. Wouldn't you say the destruction of 2/3s of the world's eco-systems because of too much CO2 in the air means there's TOO MUCH CO2 in the air?

Can I prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which could change the atmosphere of the Earth's surface. Sure I could. Could I prove it TO YOU? Ah, well, there's a different issue altogether. I have the feeling that no, I could not prove it to you. I have the feeling that the insults will come out long because you'd accept anything that's inconvenient for your own point of view.

As for whether CO2 is a pollutant, well, you might not like me saying it is a pollutant, but we've been over this, and you've shown on many occasions that you're not going to debate properly. That you're not going to look at arguments properly.

Some people don't want to know the truth. They just want their view point to be correct no matter what. So what's the point? I'm not going to change your point of view because you don't want it to change.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.


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]"

So S0n, let's start here:
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.
How much is there supposed to be? You still haven't provided one piece of data that says we have too much CO2. do you have those figures?

Then, prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of any climate change. Can you do that? nope!!!

And lastly, go in a room full of CO2 and you'll die. Do you know why? No oxygen you fool. CO2 is not a pollutant and I'd really appreciate at it that you stop with calling it such. Carbon monoxide is a pollutant and is what comes from a car.

How much is there supposed to be? Well, here's the equation.

What is in the air naturally + what we stuff in the air = X

X - what we stuff in the air = is how much there is supposed to be.

Simple, right?

Of course you're not going to see that we have too much, because you don't care how much there is. You probably believe that 100% is okay, right?

However, to prove there's too much we only need look at the oceans to see that the PH levels of the oceans are dropping because of all the CO2 there is in the air. This is killing the oceans. Wouldn't you say the destruction of 2/3s of the world's eco-systems because of too much CO2 in the air means there's TOO MUCH CO2 in the air?

Can I prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which could change the atmosphere of the Earth's surface. Sure I could. Could I prove it TO YOU? Ah, well, there's a different issue altogether. I have the feeling that no, I could not prove it to you. I have the feeling that the insults will come out long because you'd accept anything that's inconvenient for your own point of view.

As for whether CO2 is a pollutant, well, you might not like me saying it is a pollutant, but we've been over this, and you've shown on many occasions that you're not going to debate properly. That you're not going to look at arguments properly.

Some people don't want to know the truth. They just want their view point to be correct no matter what. So what's the point? I'm not going to change your point of view because you don't want it to change.

Where did you get that load of crap?

CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT... My God man think about it. It is the root of all life on earth and you want to eradicate it?

You are a total moron! You dont know what earths normal cyclical state levels historically have been and you want to make an arbitrary call and force the earth to comply...

The stupidity, IT BURNS!

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Silly Billy, that is about the funniest post I have read in a while. Plant life cannot operate at 250 ppm? At the coldest points of the glacials, the CO2 level was 180 ppm. And there were mammoths and mastodons. So what the hell were they eating if not plants? They were plant eaters, after all.

The earth has remained stable for over 450 million years? There were five great extinctions during this period. And many smaller ones.

Billy Bob, you are the most brain dead poster on this board.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.


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]"

So S0n, let's start here:
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.
How much is there supposed to be? You still haven't provided one piece of data that says we have too much CO2. do you have those figures?

Then, prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of any climate change. Can you do that? nope!!!

And lastly, go in a room full of CO2 and you'll die. Do you know why? No oxygen you fool. CO2 is not a pollutant and I'd really appreciate at it that you stop with calling it such. Carbon monoxide is a pollutant and is what comes from a car.

Ya know what I find amusing, people always point to Venus as an example of a green house and imply C02

Yet ignore Mars, which is cold and its atmosphere is made up of 95% C02

And the atmospheric pressure on Mars is what?

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

i just have to laugh at this old sock update on glacial-interglacial cycles. Exactly why is there more CO2 in the atmosphere today, ice melted. Not humans existed. holy crap batman, I don't understand idiot. I just don't.

Quite obviously, you, as an idiot, do not understand basics.

During the last glacial, there were a lot of humans alive. In fact, this is our second interglacial, as Homo Sap has been around for at least 160,000 years.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Silly Billy, that is about the funniest post I have read in a while. Plant life cannot operate at 250 ppm? At the coldest points of the glacials, the CO2 level was 180 ppm. And there were mammoths and mastodons. So what the hell were they eating if not plants? They were plant eaters, after all.

The earth has remained stable for over 450 million years? There were five great extinctions during this period. And many smaller ones.

Billy Bob, you are the most brain dead poster on this board.

You really are totally ignorant of basic chemistry and the requirements of the atmosphere for photosynthesis to take place.

Tell me moron, what happens to the chemical exchange in plants when CO2 drops below 280ppm.

Edit:
Because you are clueless;

The plants ability to reproduce slows or stops. No new flowers, no pollination, the plants ability to use water and nutrients from the soil decreases. This means plant species die, food becomes harder to grow and PEOPLE DIE!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There have already been two threads in the Environment folder where this got laughed at. But I get it, when conservatives get their marching orders, they all rush to obey.

Evans is a clown who botched the math and physics. However, you won't be able to convince a denier of that, being their faith in their conspiracy theory is unshakable. According to them, the last 3 centuries of math and physics are all wrong, overturned by an electrical engineer political fanatic. Yeah, that's probably it.

If Evans isn't a clown, he merely needs to use his theory to make climate predictions, and show those predictions come true. Mainstream climate science has been getting everything right for decades, which is why it has such credibility. Of course, like every other denier, Evans won't have the guts to put his credibility on the line by making predictions, or to submit his work to peer review.

What have they gotten right ?????

You have to be kidding me.

ROTFLMAO

 

[Billy_Bob]

There have already been two threads in the Environment folder where this got laughed at. But I get it, when conservatives get their marching orders, they all rush to obey.

Evans is a clown who botched the math and physics. However, you won't be able to convince a denier of that, being their faith in their conspiracy theory is unshakable. According to them, the last 3 centuries of math and physics are all wrong, overturned by an electrical engineer political fanatic. Yeah, that's probably it.

If Evans isn't a clown, he merely needs to use his theory to make climate predictions, and show those predictions come true. Mainstream climate science has been getting everything right for decades, which is why it has such credibility. Of course, like every other denier, Evans won't have the guts to put his credibility on the line by making predictions, or to submit his work to peer review.

I guess you have shown yourself an ignorant, know nothing ass clown..

I'm going to ask that you provide the math, methods, and data for the models which have shown NO PREDICTIVE POWER. Your models are broken and fail. They are not even close to reality. All Dr. Evans did was tell you why they fail so miserably. And his work is online for all to evaluate and comment on.

So it's your turn... Dr Evans has been very transparent in his work, you alarmists and your religious cult leaders are all wet.. Why dont you get your side to produce their data, math and methods for multidisciplinary review. OR ARE YOU SCARED WE MIGHT FIND MORE BULL SHIT and LIES?