Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years to the present

[orogenicman]

What this shows is that you and Ilar don't have the faintest **** of an idea how science works.

It shows he understands the mentality of the AGW cult and its quackologists.

Oh gee, the obscene finger-bird boys returns. How quaint. You know that posting that image online for the entire world to view is child abuse, right?

 

[ScienceRocks]

The ice age ended over 11,000 years ago. Take a look at this portion of the graph from the OP:

Why would it take 11,000 years for the temperature to increase substantially, and suddenly? Your argument doesn't hold water, bubba.

How did the "Ice age end" if temperature today are 8 degrees HIGHER than they were 11,000 years ago?

Does sock posting **** up your thinking?

So, I'm still confused with these warmers, they keep claiming that CO2 levels have doubled. Doubled from when? If CO2 was once 1000PPM, how is 400PPM doubled? Wouldn't it instead be 2000PPM?

Pre-industrial times around 1750???

 

[polarbear]

So now looking at the graph you posted it`s pretty clear that CO2 hat sweet f@ck all to do with it what happened in the antarctic 14600 years ago.

Careful, you are questioning their faith with facts....we aren't supposed to do that. gaia will smite you for sure.

Is that the goddess "Ixchel" that the IPCC`s executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Christiana Figueres was talking about?

"Excellencies, the goddess Ixchel would probably tell you that a tapestry is the result of the skilful interlacing of many threads," said Figueres, who hails from Costa Rica and started her greetings in Spanish before switching to English. "I am convinced that 20 years from now, we will admire the policy tapestry that you have woven together and think back fondly to Cancun and the inspiration of Ixchel.

Remember that dip shit high priestess of the AGW occult who says we should ride to work on bicycles made out of bamboo...which would no doubt please the AGW goddess Ixchel

 

[Old Rocks]

Mathew, don't confuse poor JC. He really doesn't know anything. Everyone knows that the pre-industrial levels were about 280 ppm. And present levels are about 400 ppm. So doubling will be about 560 ppm. But poor ol' JC is so damned dumb that he can't differentiate that the doubling is just a marking point for estimation of what the affect of continual addition of GHGs will be. And it was first used in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius.

 

[Crick]

What this shows is that you and Ilar don't have the faintest **** of an idea how science works.

It shows he understands the mentality of the AGW cult and its quackologists.

None of the criticism that any of you deniers have brought to the experiments presented here have been valid. Not one.

Your complete oblviousness to the meaning of radiophotometrically measured absorption spectra further undermines any contention that you people know what you're talking about.

SSDD's insane comments on half a dozen topics don't bode well for your group leaders but, for this purpose, his contention that absorption and emission are not related to warming - you people are either so stupid you cannot comprehend the basics or so stupid you choose to reject them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mathew, don't confuse poor JC. He really doesn't know anything. Everyone knows that the pre-industrial levels were about 280 ppm. And present levels are about 400 ppm. So doubling will be about 560 ppm. But poor ol' JC is so damned dumb that he can't differentiate that the doubling is just a marking point for estimation of what the affect of continual addition of GHGs will be. And it was first used in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius.

...and you have a lab experiment that shows how a doubling of CO2 will raise temperature?

What? No, you don't?

That's odd.

If it works as you theorize, why can't you show us how it works?

 

[Crick]

You've been shown multiple experiments that demonstrate precisely this point. That you would LIE and continue to claim no such experiments exist is precisely what it was predicted you would do.

It's why we have been so reticent to accede to your demands. The unique pleasure of stuffing the truth down your throat was overwhelmed by our desire that you not further denigrate your own good name. We hoped to keep from you further opportunities to LIE.

I guess we failed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You've been shown multiple experiments that demonstrate precisely this point. That you would LIE and continue to claim no such experiments exist is precisely what it was predicted you would do.

It's why we have been so reticent to accede to your demands. The unique pleasure of stuffing the truth down your throat was overwhelmed by our desire that you not further denigrate your own good name. We hoped to keep from you further opportunities to LIE.

I guess we failed.

i must have missed them.

Can you please repost any one of them?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You've been shown multiple experiments that demonstrate precisely this point. That you would LIE and continue to claim no such experiments exist is precisely what it was predicted you would do.

It's why we have been so reticent to accede to your demands. The unique pleasure of stuffing the truth down your throat was overwhelmed by our desire that you not further denigrate your own good name. We hoped to keep from you further opportunities to LIE.

I guess we failed.

Well, yes you have failed. You've failed to post a single experiment showing how a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature

 

[Crick]

Step right up Folks! ANOTHER LIAR MAKES HIS APPEARANCE!

 

[Old Rocks]

180 ppm CO2, continental glaciers, 280 ppm CO2, interglacial. Repeat several times, an adaquete experiment on a planetary scale.

 

[jc456]

Mathew, don't confuse poor JC. He really doesn't know anything. Everyone knows that the pre-industrial levels were about 280 ppm. And present levels are about 400 ppm. So doubling will be about 560 ppm. But poor ol' JC is so damned dumb that he can't differentiate that the doubling is just a marking point for estimation of what the affect of continual addition of GHGs will be. And it was first used in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius.

...and you have a lab experiment that shows how a doubling of CO2 will raise temperature?

What? No, you don't?

That's odd.

If it works as you theorize, why can't you show us how it works?

Seems like old rocks got his old rocks in a vice. Has cricket responding for him.

Hey old rocks, I'm here most any day, you give me the experiment that shows 120PPM increases temperatures, and I'll apologize to each and every one of you. But now, you are just an old rock!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Step right up Folks! ANOTHER LIAR MAKES HIS APPEARANCE!

^ Not a lab experiment

 

[CrusaderFrank]

180 ppm CO2, continental glaciers, 280 ppm CO2, interglacial. Repeat several times, an adaquete experiment on a planetary scale.

That's not "Science", Dear.

Have another crack at it

 

[jc456]

Mathew, don't confuse poor JC. He really doesn't know anything. Everyone knows that the pre-industrial levels were about 280 ppm. And present levels are about 400 ppm. So doubling will be about 560 ppm. But poor ol' JC is so damned dumb that he can't differentiate that the doubling is just a marking point for estimation of what the affect of continual addition of GHGs will be. And it was first used in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius.

Hey old rocks, I'm here most any day, you give me the experiment that shows 120PPM increases temperatures, and I'll apologize to each and every one of you. But now, you are just an old rock!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

180 ppm CO2, continental glaciers, 280 ppm CO2, interglacial. Repeat several times, an adaquete experiment on a planetary scale.

Wait. You can raise temperature with a 100, not a 120PPM, Increase?

Wow!

Get to it, man!

 

[jc456]

You've been shown multiple experiments that demonstrate precisely this point. That you would LIE and continue to claim no such experiments exist is precisely what it was predicted you would do.

It's why we have been so reticent to accede to your demands. The unique pleasure of stuffing the truth down your throat was overwhelmed by our desire that you not further denigrate your own good name. We hoped to keep from you further opportunities to LIE.

I guess we failed.

So again, your what hurts? I'll tell you what, give us the experiment that shows the 120PPM increases temps, then we can discuss further, to date, you've shown failed attempts to just show global warming let alone an increase of 120PPM causes a temperature increase. So, one who is cackling, don't look in the mirror!

 

[orogenicman]

Mathew, don't confuse poor JC. He really doesn't know anything. Everyone knows that the pre-industrial levels were about 280 ppm. And present levels are about 400 ppm. So doubling will be about 560 ppm. But poor ol' JC is so damned dumb that he can't differentiate that the doubling is just a marking point for estimation of what the affect of continual addition of GHGs will be. And it was first used in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius.

...and you have a lab experiment that shows how a doubling of CO2 will raise temperature?

What? No, you don't?

That's odd.

If it works as you theorize, why can't you show us how it works?

Seems like old rocks got his old rocks in a vice. Has cricket responding for him.

Hey old rocks, I'm here most any day, you give me the experiment that shows 120PPM increases temperatures, and I'll apologize to each and every one of you. But now, you are just an old rock!

 

[SSDD]

You've been shown multiple experiments that demonstrate precisely this point. That you would LIE and continue to claim no such experiments exist is precisely what it was predicted you would do.

It's why we have been so reticent to accede to your demands. The unique pleasure of stuffing the truth down your throat was overwhelmed by our desire that you not further denigrate your own good name. We hoped to keep from you further opportunities to LIE.

I guess we failed.

Experiments have been shown that demonstrate one thing or another, but none of them have demonstrated that adding a bit of CO2 in the open atmosphere will result in warming. The fact that you think that is what they show only exposes your ignorance and explains why you have been so completely duped by the AGW hoax.

 

[SSDD]

180 ppm CO2, continental glaciers, 280 ppm CO2, interglacial. Repeat several times, an adaquete experiment on a planetary scale.

1000ppm the earth begins decent into a deep ice age. Your thinking is flawed....If 280ppm is enough to melt glaciers, how did the earth begin to cool enough for them to form with CO2 over 1000ppm?