Scientists confirm basic physics - CO2 makes it hotter.

[RKMBrown]

Losertarians work on opinions and really don't have a solid idea of what science is and a respect for it.

ROFL look at the asshole who wants respect for junk science.

Look at that scale 387 to 407 for blue to red ROFL

It's a stupid monkey chart.

And what is that supposed to mean, other than you don't have a clue?

It means the chart is making a mountain out of a mole hill, or in this case showing a minor variation in concentrations of "ONE" gas over time as if it's somehow some significant thing. The reason for this minor variation could be just about anything, but more than likely it's an issue of weather patterns maybe a volcano or two, some fires.

Wouldnt it be more prudent to err on the side of caution? I dont necessarily think man alone is responsible for the warming but our contribution of CO2 could tip some unseen balance.

No. It would not be more prudent to err on the side of caution. No evidence suggests or provides whether more, less, or the same amount of co2 is better or worse on "temperatures." CO2 is not pollution. It's naturally occurring and it's good for the environment. ZERO EVIDENCE EXISTS to the contrary. The people screaming the end is nigh are "lunatics" like old rocks and crooks like Al Gore.

 

[Old Rocks]

Brownie, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University says that you are full of shit.

 

[RKMBrown]

Brownie, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University says that you are full of shit.

ROFL science by committee man name one thing I said that is not an obvious fact backed by the evidence. Just cause you're a moron does not mean we are all morons.

 

[Asclepias]

Losertarians work on opinions and really don't have a solid idea of what science is and a respect for it.

ROFL look at the asshole who wants respect for junk science.

Look at that scale 387 to 407 for blue to red ROFL

It's a stupid monkey chart.

And what is that supposed to mean, other than you don't have a clue?

It means the chart is making a mountain out of a mole hill, or in this case showing a minor variation in concentrations of "ONE" gas over time as if it's somehow some significant thing. The reason for this minor variation could be just about anything, but more than likely it's an issue of weather patterns maybe a volcano or two, some fires.

Wouldnt it be more prudent to err on the side of caution? I dont necessarily think man alone is responsible for the warming but our contribution of CO2 could tip some unseen balance.

No. It would not be more prudent to err on the side of caution. No evidence suggests or provides whether more, less, or the same amount of co2 is better or worse on "temperatures." CO2 is not pollution. It's naturally occurring and it's good for the environment. ZERO EVIDENCE EXISTS to the contrary. The people screaming the end is nigh are "lunatics" like old rocks and crooks like Al Gore.

Who said anything about pollution? Its a known fact CO2 caused the last warming that resulted in the time periods the dinosaurs were around.,

 

[Old Rocks]

Brownie, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University says that you are full of shit.

ROFL science by committee man name one thing I said that is not an obvious fact backed by the evidence. Just cause you're a moron does not mean we are all morons.

Never accused everyone of being a moron, just you.

OK, you have to have salt to stay alive. It is absolutely essential to your well being. That being said, then surely no harm can come from eating a quart of it. Go ahead, be my guest, and try it.

 

[RKMBrown]

ROFL look at the asshole who wants respect for junk science.

Look at that scale 387 to 407 for blue to red ROFL

It's a stupid monkey chart.

And what is that supposed to mean, other than you don't have a clue?

It means the chart is making a mountain out of a mole hill, or in this case showing a minor variation in concentrations of "ONE" gas over time as if it's somehow some significant thing. The reason for this minor variation could be just about anything, but more than likely it's an issue of weather patterns maybe a volcano or two, some fires.

Wouldnt it be more prudent to err on the side of caution? I dont necessarily think man alone is responsible for the warming but our contribution of CO2 could tip some unseen balance.

No. It would not be more prudent to err on the side of caution. No evidence suggests or provides whether more, less, or the same amount of co2 is better or worse on "temperatures." CO2 is not pollution. It's naturally occurring and it's good for the environment. ZERO EVIDENCE EXISTS to the contrary. The people screaming the end is nigh are "lunatics" like old rocks and crooks like Al Gore.

Who said anything about pollution? Its a known fact CO2 caused the last warming that resulted in the time periods the dinosaurs were around.,

You got it backwards... it was warmer, so much so that most of the world was much more amiable to life than this current cold snap we are living under. The result of the additional life and warmth was more CO2.

 

[RKMBrown]

Brownie, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University says that you are full of shit.

ROFL science by committee man name one thing I said that is not an obvious fact backed by the evidence. Just cause you're a moron does not mean we are all morons.

Never accused everyone of being a moron, just you.

OK, you have to have salt to stay alive. It is absolutely essential to your well being. That being said, then surely no harm can come from eating a quart of it. Go ahead, be my guest, and try it.

Hey MORON, why change the issue from co2 to salt? You trying to get someone killed on this board?
Are you threatening me?

Has anyone ever died of CO2 poisoning from drinking too many sodas? What a moron.

 

[Asclepias]

And what is that supposed to mean, other than you don't have a clue?

It means the chart is making a mountain out of a mole hill, or in this case showing a minor variation in concentrations of "ONE" gas over time as if it's somehow some significant thing. The reason for this minor variation could be just about anything, but more than likely it's an issue of weather patterns maybe a volcano or two, some fires.

Wouldnt it be more prudent to err on the side of caution? I dont necessarily think man alone is responsible for the warming but our contribution of CO2 could tip some unseen balance.

No. It would not be more prudent to err on the side of caution. No evidence suggests or provides whether more, less, or the same amount of co2 is better or worse on "temperatures." CO2 is not pollution. It's naturally occurring and it's good for the environment. ZERO EVIDENCE EXISTS to the contrary. The people screaming the end is nigh are "lunatics" like old rocks and crooks like Al Gore.

Who said anything about pollution? Its a known fact CO2 caused the last warming that resulted in the time periods the dinosaurs were around.,

You got it backwards... it was warmer, so much so that most of the world was much more amiable to life than this current cold snap we are living under. The result of the additional life and warmth was more CO2.

You have it backwards. It was warmer due to the abundance of CO2. Can you tell me what gas plants emit? After you do that explain to me the concept of a green house.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Who said anything about pollution? Its a known fact CO2 caused the last warming that resulted in the time periods the dinosaurs were around.,

WRONG!

The empirical evidence shows that natural variation is the cause and not even 0.01 ppm can be attributed to have caused warming.

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

NO DISCERNIBLE INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE RISE. In fact there is one one-hundredth of a degree decline despite the rise in CO2. CO2 has no effect in our atmosphere.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You have it backwards. It was warmer due to the abundance of CO2. Can you tell me what gas plants emit? After you do that explain to me the concept of a green house.

The earth has no green house effect. Water vapor and the convection cycle lay that lie waste.

 

[sealybobo]

Scientists confirm amassing CO2 heats Earth s surface Science News

(site has cut n paste disabled so to paraphrase)

Scientists witness direct correlation between CO2 emissions and how much solar radiation (heat to you) strikes the Earth.

How many times do they have to prove it? Its already known the last warm up was started by high CO2 levels

Huxley would have said 62,399 more times.

"One hundred repetitions three nights a week for four years, thought Bernard Marx, who was a specialist on hypnopædia. Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth."
- "Brave New World"

This reminds me of when the corporations said lead was natural and therefore good for us or remember the scientists argued cigarettes were good?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You have it backwards. It was warmer due to the abundance of CO2. Can you tell me what gas plants emit? After you do that explain to me the concept of a green house.

The fact CO2 was as high as 4000 ppm during the Ordovician period and temperatures fell, would suggest that claims of CO2's warming potential ARE grossly over stated.

 

[Crick]

n argument used against the warming effect of carbon dioxide is that millions of years ago,CO2 levels were higher during periods where large glaciers formed over the Earth's poles. This argument fails to take into account that solar output was also lower during these periods. The combined effect of sun and CO2 show good correlation with climate (Royer 2006). The one period that until recently puzzled paleoclimatologists was the late Ordovician, around 444 million years ago. At this time, CO2 levels were very high, around 5600 parts per million (in contrast, current CO2 levels are 389 parts per million). However,glaciers were so far-reaching during the late Ordovician, it coincided with one of the largest marine mass extinction events in Earth history. How did glaciation occur with such highCO2 levels? Recent data has revealed CO2 levels at the time of the late Ordovician ice agewere not that high after all.

Past studies on the Ordovician period calculated CO2 levels at 10 million year intervals. The problem with such coarse data sampling is the Ordovician ice age lasted only half a million years. To fill in the gaps, a 2009 study examined strontium isotopes in the sediment record (Young 2009). Strontium is produced by rock weathering, the process that removes CO2from the air. Consequently, the ratio of strontium isotopes can be used to determine how quickly rock weathering removed CO2 from the atmosphere in the past. Using strontium levels, Young determined that during the late Ordovician, rock weathering was at high levels while volcanic activity, which adds CO2 to the atmosphere, dropped. This led to CO2 levels falling below 3000 parts per million which was low enough to initiate glaciation - the growing of ice sheets.

Last week, another study headed by Seth Young further examined this period by extracting sediment cores from Estonia and Anticosti Island, Canada (Young 2010). The cores were used to construct a sequence of carbon-13 levels from rocks formed during the Ordovician. This was used as a proxy for atmospheric CO2 levels, at a much higher resolution than previous data. What they found was consistent with the strontium results in Young 2009 -CO2 levels dropped at the same time that sea surface temperatures dropped and ice sheets expanded. As the ice sheets grew to cover the continent, rock weathering decreased. This led to an increase in atmospheric CO2 which caused global warming and a retreat of the glaciers.

Thus arguments that Ordovician glaciation disproves the warming effect of CO2 are groundless. On the contrary, the CO2 record over the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.

CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician

 

[Old Rocks]

What absolutely amazes me is that Elektra and Billy Boob just post nonsense that they pull out of their ass without the least effort to research what the facts are. I suppose that I should be happy to have such asinine behavior from them, because it highlights the ignorance and lies on that side.

 

[RKMBrown]

It means the chart is making a mountain out of a mole hill, or in this case showing a minor variation in concentrations of "ONE" gas over time as if it's somehow some significant thing. The reason for this minor variation could be just about anything, but more than likely it's an issue of weather patterns maybe a volcano or two, some fires.

Wouldnt it be more prudent to err on the side of caution? I dont necessarily think man alone is responsible for the warming but our contribution of CO2 could tip some unseen balance.

No. It would not be more prudent to err on the side of caution. No evidence suggests or provides whether more, less, or the same amount of co2 is better or worse on "temperatures." CO2 is not pollution. It's naturally occurring and it's good for the environment. ZERO EVIDENCE EXISTS to the contrary. The people screaming the end is nigh are "lunatics" like old rocks and crooks like Al Gore.

Who said anything about pollution? Its a known fact CO2 caused the last warming that resulted in the time periods the dinosaurs were around.,

You got it backwards... it was warmer, so much so that most of the world was much more amiable to life than this current cold snap we are living under. The result of the additional life and warmth was more CO2.

You have it backwards. It was warmer due to the abundance of CO2. Can you tell me what gas plants emit? After you do that explain to me the concept of a green house.

A greenhouse is an environmentally controlled structure designed to extend growing seasons. Our atmosphere is not a greenhouse.

Plants consume / use CO2 through a process called photosynthesis. Some of the CO2 they consume gets converted to sugars, for example glucose C6H12O6, some exhaled, some stored.

While you could argue that plants produce CO2 that would be a half truth, as really they are just temporarily storing it.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Brownie, so you know a bit of grade school level biology. That's nice.

In the meantime, what we are discussing is atmospheric physics. Without the GHGs in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. With too high a load of GHGs in the atmosphere, the climate becomes inhospitable to life. Like Venus. In the the zone where life can exist, from very cold to very hot, is quite a large variety of climates. However, there is a real caveat concerning rapidly increasing or decreasing the GHG levels. In geological history, whenever we see a rapid change in the GHG levels, we see periods of extinctions. And we are already in the midst of the sixth great extinction period, from our actions in usurping habitat that other animals have to have to survive. Add a rapid warmup to that, and that speeds up the rate of extinction. Which, in a world of at present, 7 billion+ humans, may lead to a rapid reduction of that number.

 

[jc456]

and yet none of you punks spouting off about CO2 in the atmosphere can supply one experiment that shows that CO2 CAUSES a temperature rise. Please we're all eyes waiting for it. Ah crap, that's right, you ain't got it. LOL. What a bunch of silliness from the warmers in this thread.

Thanks again Billy, RKM and Elektra. Putting up the good fight.

 

[Asclepias]

You have it backwards. It was warmer due to the abundance of CO2. Can you tell me what gas plants emit? After you do that explain to me the concept of a green house.

The fact CO2 was as high as 4000 ppm during the Ordovician period and temperatures fell, would suggest that claims of CO2's warming potential ARE grossly over stated.

You forgot the sun was also further away during that period. Please link to the fake quote you didnt link to in your post.

 

[Asclepias]

Wouldnt it be more prudent to err on the side of caution? I dont necessarily think man alone is responsible for the warming but our contribution of CO2 could tip some unseen balance.

No. It would not be more prudent to err on the side of caution. No evidence suggests or provides whether more, less, or the same amount of co2 is better or worse on "temperatures." CO2 is not pollution. It's naturally occurring and it's good for the environment. ZERO EVIDENCE EXISTS to the contrary. The people screaming the end is nigh are "lunatics" like old rocks and crooks like Al Gore.

Who said anything about pollution? Its a known fact CO2 caused the last warming that resulted in the time periods the dinosaurs were around.,

You got it backwards... it was warmer, so much so that most of the world was much more amiable to life than this current cold snap we are living under. The result of the additional life and warmth was more CO2.

You have it backwards. It was warmer due to the abundance of CO2. Can you tell me what gas plants emit? After you do that explain to me the concept of a green house.

A greenhouse is an environmentally controlled structure designed to extend growing seasons. Our atmosphere is not a greenhouse.

Plants consume / use CO2 through a process called photosynthesis. Some of the CO2 they consume gets converted to sugars, for example glucose C6H12O6, some exhaled, some stored.

While you could argue that plants produce CO2 that would be a half truth, as really they are just temporarily storing it.

Sorry bud. Our atmosphere works just like a greenhouse. CO2 is an insulator that works just like the glass in a greenhouse.

Plants actually produce way more oxygen than CO2 However, it absolutely needs CO2 in order to survive. That proves the CO2 has to be in the environment prior to the plant gaining the large sizes it did during the periods of high heat.

 

[jc456]

and yet none of you punks spouting off about CO2 in the atmosphere can supply one experiment that shows that CO2 CAUSES a temperature rise. Please we're all eyes waiting for it. Ah crap, that's right, you ain't got it. LOL. What a bunch of silliness from the warmers in this thread.

Thanks again Billy, RKM and Elektra. Putting up the good fight.

And still no experiment.