Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is stupid to think that we can put out 134 times the background natural CO2 production of the planet per year and then pretend like that is not going to have an effect. Simple logic and chemistry suggest otherwise.
Hmmm... using "simple logic and chemistry," explain why both the CO2 levels and temperatures were higher over 300,000 years ago, when humans were not emitting high levels of CO2, than they are now.
Hmmm... using "simple logic and chemistry," explain why both the CO2 levels and temperatures were higher over 300,000 years ago, when humans were not emitting high levels of CO2, than they are now.
Name a specific point in time rather than a vague "over 300,000 years ago" and I would be glad to go look that up for you. A specific epoch or age.
For what its worth, for all of the Earth's history, it has taken between 5,000-20,000 years to move up or down 100ppm co2 levels. We have gone up 100ppm in the past 100 years. That is just a numerical fact.
Also we are currently at the highest co2 concentrations seen in at least 15 million years so your numbers are a bit off.
I've posted a chart from the Lawrence National Laboratory at UC Berkeley earlier in this thread. But here it is again, just for you:
Graph from the Lawrence National Laboratory at UC Berkeley: https://web.archive.org/web/20101105...rature-CO2.jpg
Your chart is wrong We are currently over 400ppm < this is a verifiable fact. Your chart shows us currently at 280, which is false. Use bad data, get bad conclusions. Garbage in garbage out.
I'm waiting for all the climate change hoaxers to drop dead from the extreme heat we must surely be having. The predictor models said so.
Keep straw-manning, I hear it really makes your position so much stronger. Might as well since the numbers aren't on your side. Wanna throw in some ad-hom's for good measure? Maybe a good old fashioned "It snowed in my backyard last week, checkmate global warming!"?
A little old but still makes the point eloquently:
Where's that from? It doesn't jibe with the LBL's data. The graphed CO2 levels and temperature changes on the LBL's graph are in degrees Celsius. According to theLBL's graph, a 400 ppm CO2 level should correspond with a 6+ degrees Celsius temperature increase. That's a temperature increase of over 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Can anyone document such an increase?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are currently over 400ppm < this is a verifiable fact. Your chart shows us currently at 280, which is false. Use bad data, get bad conclusions. Garbage in garbage out.
