CO2 at 400 ppm is a significant threshold and we haven't come anywhere close to that in the last 450,000 years. When did we last reach this threshold and during which time period? Pheanerozoic during the Devonian? That would be my guess and the majority of the world was under water. We wouldn't want to repeat that. When was the last time BIE that the Earth had over 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and was there life on land yet?

(05-29-2016 09:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  CO2 at 400 ppm is a significant threshold and we haven't come anywhere close to that in the last 450,000 years. When did we last reach this threshold and during which time period? Pheanerozoic during the Devonian? That would be my guess and the majority of the world was under water. We wouldn't want to repeat that. When was the last time BIE that the Earth had over 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and was there life on land yet?

So we had accurate measurements of CO2 in our atmosphere taken throughout the history of the Earth?

No.

What we have is other methods to extrapolate it. Which is then manipulated by the global warming loons in order to match their talking points.

I have to yet remind you people that the last time "praise science" wanted mankind to do something, it was due to global cooling, and they were recommending that we pump ash into the atmosphere to heat us up.

In summary, even if the Earth was undergoing some sort of detrimental changes to the atomsphere, the last thing I would want is a bunch of people who think they know what to do touching it, because they have a history of being completely moronic when it comes to solutions.

And since there is no proof that anything detrimental is happening, I really dont want the f*cknuts messing around with it. Fortunately, they really dont want to mess around with it either. They are simply on a money grab.

(05-29-2016 07:46 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 12:52 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  http://townhall.com/columnists/williesoo...y-n2169455

Quote:True science requires that data, observations and other evidence support a hypothesis – and that it can withstand withering analysis and criticism – or the hypothesis is wrong.

That’s why Albert Einstein once joked, “If the facts don’t fit your theory, change the facts.” When informed that scientists who rejected his theory of relativity had published a pamphlet, 100 authors against Einstein, he replied: “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough.”

...

Perhaps it’s not so settled. When the Australian government recently shifted funds from studying climate change to addressing threats that might result, 275 research jobs were imperiled. The very scientists who’d been saying there was a 97% consensus howled that there really wasn’t one. Climate change is very complex, they cried (which is true), and much more work must be done if we are to provide more accurate temperature predictions, instead of wild forecasts based on CO2 emissions (also true).

...

As for Nye’s assertions that “carbon dioxide has an enormous effect on planetary temperatures” and “climate change was discovered in recent times by comparing the Earth to the planet Venus” – those are truly bizarre, misleading, vacuous claims.

The relatively rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 30 years has produced only 0.2°C (0.4°F) of global warming – compared to a 1°C (1.8°F) total temperature increase over the past 150 years. That means the planetary temperature increase has slowed down, as carbon dioxide levels rose. In fact, average temperatures have barely budged for nearly 19 years, an inconvenient reality that even the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) now recognizes.

One just has to look at Venus to know that CO2 can have a dramatic impact on an atmosphere. That's hardly bizarre.

How much do we know about Venus? Not
Much.. The hypothesis is that carbon dioxide is causing the high temperatures but not proven. It could also be the core of Venus and the atmospheric pressure causing the high temperature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except that there is no evidence of volcanism on Venus. Thus no transfer of any heat from the core to the atmosphere. And atmospheric pressure by itself wouldn't cause the high temperature.

(05-30-2016 08:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-29-2016 07:46 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 12:52 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  http://townhall.com/columnists/williesoo...y-n2169455

Quote:True science requires that data, observations and other evidence support a hypothesis – and that it can withstand withering analysis and criticism – or the hypothesis is wrong.

That’s why Albert Einstein once joked, “If the facts don’t fit your theory, change the facts.” When informed that scientists who rejected his theory of relativity had published a pamphlet, 100 authors against Einstein, he replied: “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough.”

...

Perhaps it’s not so settled. When the Australian government recently shifted funds from studying climate change to addressing threats that might result, 275 research jobs were imperiled. The very scientists who’d been saying there was a 97% consensus howled that there really wasn’t one. Climate change is very complex, they cried (which is true), and much more work must be done if we are to provide more accurate temperature predictions, instead of wild forecasts based on CO2 emissions (also true).

...

As for Nye’s assertions that “carbon dioxide has an enormous effect on planetary temperatures” and “climate change was discovered in recent times by comparing the Earth to the planet Venus” – those are truly bizarre, misleading, vacuous claims.

The relatively rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 30 years has produced only 0.2°C (0.4°F) of global warming – compared to a 1°C (1.8°F) total temperature increase over the past 150 years. That means the planetary temperature increase has slowed down, as carbon dioxide levels rose. In fact, average temperatures have barely budged for nearly 19 years, an inconvenient reality that even the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) now recognizes.

One just has to look at Venus to know that CO2 can have a dramatic impact on an atmosphere. That's hardly bizarre.

How much do we know about Venus? Not
Much.. The hypothesis is that carbon dioxide is causing the high temperatures but not proven. It could also be the core of Venus and the atmospheric pressure causing the high temperature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except that there is no evidence of volcanism on Venus. Thus no transfer of any heat from the core to the atmosphere. And atmospheric pressure by itself wouldn't cause the high temperature.

Really?

http://www.space.com/29742-venus-volcano...ctive.html

(05-30-2016 08:48 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 08:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-29-2016 07:46 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 12:52 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  http://townhall.com/columnists/williesoo...y-n2169455

One just has to look at Venus to know that CO2 can have a dramatic impact on an atmosphere. That's hardly bizarre.

How much do we know about Venus? Not
Much.. The hypothesis is that carbon dioxide is causing the high temperatures but not proven. It could also be the core of Venus and the atmospheric pressure causing the high temperature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except that there is no evidence of volcanism on Venus. Thus no transfer of any heat from the core to the atmosphere. And atmospheric pressure by itself wouldn't cause the high temperature.

Really?

http://www.space.com/29742-venus-volcano...ctive.html

So, did that say that Venus's surface temperature is due to volcanism?

(05-29-2016 09:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  CO2 at 400 ppm is a significant threshold and we haven't come anywhere close to that in the last 450,000 years.

Was there life on this planet the last time it was this high? if so why is 400 more significant than 350 or 450?

Quote:When was the last time BIE that the Earth had over 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and was there life on land yet?

The assumption is that the reason that there was no life on land was because of the C02 level.. Will you acknowledge that there were other factors in play?

(05-30-2016 08:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 08:48 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 08:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-29-2016 07:46 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  One just has to look at Venus to know that CO2 can have a dramatic impact on an atmosphere. That's hardly bizarre.

How much do we know about Venus? Not
Much.. The hypothesis is that carbon dioxide is causing the high temperatures but not proven. It could also be the core of Venus and the atmospheric pressure causing the high temperature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except that there is no evidence of volcanism on Venus. Thus no transfer of any heat from the core to the atmosphere. And atmospheric pressure by itself wouldn't cause the high temperature.

Really?

http://www.space.com/29742-venus-volcano...ctive.html

So, did that say that Venus's surface temperature is due to volcanism?

Lol. Damn son. Did you read ANY of that?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(05-30-2016 08:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 08:48 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 08:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-29-2016 07:46 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  One just has to look at Venus to know that CO2 can have a dramatic impact on an atmosphere. That's hardly bizarre.

How much do we know about Venus? Not
Much.. The hypothesis is that carbon dioxide is causing the high temperatures but not proven. It could also be the core of Venus and the atmospheric pressure causing the high temperature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except that there is no evidence of volcanism on Venus. Thus no transfer of any heat from the core to the atmosphere. And atmospheric pressure by itself wouldn't cause the high temperature.

Really?

http://www.space.com/29742-venus-volcano...ctive.html

So, did that say that Venus's surface temperature is due to volcanism?

Well, let's see. Here's a direct quote:

The European Space Agency's Venus Express spacecraft observed temperatures spiking by several hundred degrees Fahrenheit in some spots on the scorching-hot planet's surface.

The hotspots ranged from 0.39 square miles (1 square kilometer) to 115 square miles (200 square km). A closer look at these regions showed that they were likely hot due to lava running across the Venus surface, scientists said.

Now, let's take your quote:
Except that there is no evidence of volcanism on Venus.

And let's take the findings from the spacecraft that was orbiting the planet:

Venus' volcanoes are likely still spewing out lava, a new study suggests.

Now, are you going to sit there and keep saying that there is no proof of volcanic activity on Venus?

this thread begs the question, "what have we learned?"

answer: not a goddammed thing in scope; other than humans are still young, dumb, and susceptible to socialized propaganda brainwashing....

(05-31-2016 01:13 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  this thread begs the question, "what have we learned?"

answer: not a goddammed thing in scope; other than humans are still young, dumb, and susceptible to socialized propaganda brainwashing....

Some of you guys who think you are scientists, arent. Some of you who believed you think like a scientist should, dont.

If you are willing to ignore, brush off, or otherwise disregard proof that goes against your belief, you are not a scientist. You are an ideologue. You're not alone. There are plenty of people who have a degree and call themselves "scientists" when, in reality, they behave like ideologues. There is a difference. A huge difference.

(05-31-2016 12:18 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Some of you guys who think you are scientists, arent. Some of you who believed you think like a scientist should, dont.

If you are willing to ignore, brush off, or otherwise disregard proof that goes against your belief, you are not a scientist. You are an ideologue. You're not alone. There are plenty of people who have a degree and call themselves "scientists" when, in reality, they behave like ideologues. There is a difference. A huge difference.

it's funny what 'funny money' can create, eh?

(05-27-2016 01:26 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:07 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  This is about right

Yep!

What?

A pathetic attempt to participate in the thread, that's what.

lol

Bill Nye the "I want to keep my friends employed" Guy.

Was there life on this planet the last time it was this high? if so why is 400 more significant than 350 or 450?

There is a direct matching correlation between CO2 levels and global mean temps. That's why it is important. For the last 450,000 years we haven't reached above 300 ppm until the last 40 years.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend_an...ation.html

if so why is 400 more significant than 350 or 450?

This doesn't even deserve a response. It's the thought process of a 3rd grader.

(05-27-2016 04:39 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 04:03 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 02:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 02:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 01:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If you assume that he meant that even tiny amounts of CO2 are going to have a dramatic impact on a global scale, then you're right. You know perfectly well that isn't what he was saying.

What else could he have meant? Earths Atmosphere is 0.039% CO2 and that is exactly what the narrative of the climate alarmists. It's why we must "curb fossil fuel use" and "reduce our carbon footprints"

It's why people like Nye and Gore puke the phrase "the science is settled" all the dang time. This is all despite the fact that the last time Earth's CO2 was "this high" the oceans, skies, and lands were teaming with life.

If they had one ounce of scientific curiosity on this issue they would not seek to stifle debate. They would not try to convince scientifically ignorant people that Venus is a template of Earth.

Quote:And I know perfectly well what the atmospheric makeup of Mars and Venus are.

I'm impressed then, because I had to look up Mars. I know it was higher than earth but not that it was as high as Venus.

Quote:And we all know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, correct?

So is water vapor. And, by the way, water vapor is a far stronger greenhouse gas than C02 and there is a shaq load more of it in the atmosphere.

Ozone also has greenhouse properties and we were dying to save that (rightfully so) 20 years ago.

Quote:Or are you questioning that too?

Right... pointing out that "look at venus" is as logically sound as "you forgot Poland" is questioning the physical properties of C02.

1) Venus is much farther from the sun than Mercury
2) Venus is hotter than the hottest part of Mercury
3) Venus doesn't have another heat source such as volcanism to warm it
4) Venus's atmosphere is almost entirely CO2
5) Mercury doesn't have a significant atmosphere

And water vapor is not as effective a greenhouse gas as CO2, per molecule.

Appels and oranges are both fruits... You just compared a planet with no atmosphere at all (mercury) with a planet who's atmosphere is 90 times more dense than Earth's.

Earth 1,000mb which is 133 times more dense than Mars
Venus 91,170 which is 90 times more dense than Earth

1) The Earth has had far higher concentrations of CO2 In the Past than Today
2) There were no people, cars, or factories back when there were higher concentrations of CO2 In the Past than Today
3) While we are able to examine CO2 concentrations from the past we do not have a geological record of solar activity in the past
4) Earth's Atmosphere is far thinner than that of Venus and our C02 PPM is minuscule.
5) If you shaded Venus so that the amount of solar radiation it received was about the same as earth liquid oceans would begin to form.

Liquid oceans? With what liquid?

methane?

(05-31-2016 02:28 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  There is a direct matching correlation between CO2 levels and global mean temps. That's why it is important.

Now go look up henry's law and tell me why that might be...

Quote:This doesn't even deserve a response. It's the thought process of a 3rd grader.

No Mach, it's called critical thinking. Just because you say "A" is significant does not make it so.

(05-31-2016 02:28 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Was there life on this planet the last time it was this high? if so why is 400 more significant than 350 or 450?

There is a direct matching correlation between CO2 levels and global mean temps. That's why it is important. For the last 450,000 years we haven't reached above 300 ppm until the last 40 years.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend_an...ation.html

if so why is 400 more significant than 350 or 450?

This doesn't even deserve a response. It's the thought process of a 3rd grader.

Too bad there isnt a direct correlation between what the global warming freaks predicted would happen, and what actually happened.