Australian Politics Forum - Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #210 - May 8^th, 2015 at 3:07pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 2:28pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 7:21am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 12:37am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 12:04am:

Since the Co2 levels were above 400 ppm 100,000 years, without human industry or action (and during a Glaciation) why are you so sure that 400 ppm of Co2 has anything to do with the recent warming or was even mostly caused by human industry??

Correlation Wink

Correct, every time in the past that one of the greenhouse gasses were measured to be high the event correlated to a warm period.

Co2 has anything to do with the recent warming or was even mostly caused by human industry?

CO2 levels were fairly constant for many centuries, From the industrial revolution till today we have been pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Do you really think that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere coinciding with us pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is just a crazy coincidence.

C-14 is produced from C-12 in the biosphere by cosmic radiation. Fossil fuels have been buried shielded from cosmic radiation long enough to have all their C-14 decayed to C-12

if you look at a graph of change in C-14 over time, you will see that there is a decrease in the fraction of C-14 (relative to C-12) and this means that much of the CO2 added to the earths atmosphere is made up of Carbon which is depleted of the C-14 isotope

So, this is very strong evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is due to the combustion of fossil fuels.

This coincidence that you speak of, has left a very distinct isotopic marker which can be measured

there is no doubt that the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels are human generated (fossil fuel combustion and deforestation)

(in any case, a simple mass balance will tell you how much CO2 has been produced by human activities over the past century or so, and this CO2 has gone somewhere hasnt it folks)

https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/14cratio.png

Just sayin... do you have anything younger for a graph. Anybody do any papers after the 1950's

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #211 - May 8^th, 2015 at 3:32pm

progressiveslol wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 3:07pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 2:28pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 7:21am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 12:37am:

[quote author=gizmo_2655 link=1429976461/191#191 date=1431007486]

Since the Co2 levels were above 400 ppm 100,000 years, without human industry or action (and during a Glaciation) why are you so sure that 400 ppm of Co2 has anything to do with the recent warming or was even mostly caused by human industry??

Correlation Wink

Correct, every time in the past that one of the greenhouse gasses were measured to be high the event correlated to a warm period.

Co2 has anything to do with the recent warming or was even mostly caused by human industry?

CO2 levels were fairly constant for many centuries, From the industrial revolution till today we have been pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Do you really think that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere coinciding with us pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is just a crazy coincidence.

C-14 is produced from C-12 in the biosphere by cosmic radiation. /quote]
Just sayin... do you have anything younger for a graph. Anybody do any papers after the 1950's

And you do realise that Co2 is NOT Carbon-14 or Carbon-12

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #212 - May 8^th, 2015 at 5:42pm

progressiveslol wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 9:10am:

John_Taverner wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 8:46am:

Dnarever wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 7:21am:

Conclusion is that we know that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will cause temperature increases as it has every other time in the past and we know that CO2 levels are increasing in the atmosphere and have been ever since we started pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere (hardly a surprise finding).

People arguing that pumping more of something in will not increase the volume are literally arguing that 2 + 2 = 2.

This is true, but apart from that, the fact that Carbon Dioxide absorbs Infrared radiation of the right wavelength (and scatters it) is about as well established as you can get. It's even a well established way of measuring CO2 levels.

http://www.systechillinois.com/en/infrared-carbon-dioxide-sensors_48.html

Quote:

Systech Illinois’ carbon dioxide analyzers use the well-defined infrared principle for accurate measurement of percent levels of carbon dioxide in most industrial processes.

The infrared sensors are in a self contained unit mounted inside the carbon dioxide gas analyzers with the necessary electronics to process the signal from the sensor and display the carbon dioxide concentration on the digital display.

There is no need for second guessing or relying on past data.

So is a wavelength saturation, but what the activist climate junky relies on, are the unknowns. They rely on feedbacks. Co2 alone is not an issue.

So no, the way you talk of confidence is utter crap.

So what you're saying is that you're the better class of denialist, who realises that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect, but you question the extent of the negative (and positive ) feedbacks . Is that right?

So you distance yourself from the froth at the mouth (CO2 is a tiny amount) Soren types?

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #213 - May 8^th, 2015 at 6:58pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 2:46pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 12:37am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 12:04am:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 11:52pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:51pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:48pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:42pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:19pm:

Soren wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 9:01pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 7:31pm:

the CO2 concentration in the earths atmosphere has breached the 400 ppmv level

Oooh... it has breached the 0.04% mark!!!!!

Plant food has breached the 0.04% mark!! Run for the hills!!!!

when did the atmospheric CO2 concentration last breach the 400 ppmv level?

Anytime before about 100,000 years ago.

Exactly.

And how many permanent human settlements existed before 100,000 years ago?

Almost none from what I've read/studied. They were mostly hunter/gatherers at that stage.

Very good!

So - can you now explain to us why you think your question was relevant?

We are talking about something happening now - that is impacting significantly on permanent human habitations and their associated infrastructure.

Why is what may or may not have happened 100,000 years ago relevant?

Since the Co2 levels were above 400 ppm 100,000 years, without human industry or action (and during a Glaciation) why are you so sure that 400 ppm of Co2 has anything to do with the recent warming or was even mostly caused by human industry??

Correlation Wink

Yes, correlation, as opposed to causation...

First there must be correlation!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #214 - May 8^th, 2015 at 7:01pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 1:56pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 7:03am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 12:04am:

Since the Co2 levels were above 400 ppm 100,000 years, without human industry or action (and during a Glaciation) why are you so sure that 400 ppm of Co2 has anything to do with the recent warming or was even mostly caused by human industry??

Your premise is wrong. Anyone who accepted this without any challenge needs to brush up on the facts too.

How is the premise wrong...IF Co2 levels were at or over 400 ppm during a Glacial event, then the Co2 levels we currently have are not causing warming.

That doesn't follow: the equation is complex and involves planetary alignments BUT YOU KNOW THAT AND ARE JUST PRETENDING BECAUSE THAT'S HOW MUCH YOU HATE THE KIDS LONGTIME Shocked

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #215 - May 8^th, 2015 at 7:03pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 6:58pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 2:46pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 12:37am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 12:04am:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 11:52pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:51pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:48pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:42pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:19pm:

Soren wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 9:01pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 7:31pm:

the CO2 concentration in the earths atmosphere has breached the 400 ppmv level

Oooh... it has breached the 0.04% mark!!!!!

Plant food has breached the 0.04% mark!! Run for the hills!!!!

when did the atmospheric CO2 concentration last breach the 400 ppmv level?

Anytime before about 100,000 years ago.

Exactly.

And how many permanent human settlements existed before 100,000 years ago?

Almost none from what I've read/studied. They were mostly hunter/gatherers at that stage.

Very good!

So - can you now explain to us why you think your question was relevant?

We are talking about something happening now - that is impacting significantly on permanent human habitations and their associated infrastructure.

Why is what may or may not have happened 100,000 years ago relevant?

Since the Co2 levels were above 400 ppm 100,000 years, without human industry or action (and during a Glaciation) why are you so sure that 400 ppm of Co2 has anything to do with the recent warming or was even mostly caused by human industry??

Correlation Wink

Yes, correlation, as opposed to causation...

First there must be correlation!

Which really does NOT mean that Co2 is the cause (causality) of warming...it just means that warming and Co2 are both 'increasing' at the same time... Cheesy

"1. Confusing correlation with causation

A correlation is when two variables vary together, whereas causation occurs when one factor causes the other. It may be tempting to think that the former implies the latter, but that is hardly ever the case. For instance, ice cream sales may increase in the summer and decrease in the winter. The same may be true for drowning accidents. Does this mean we can draw the conclusion that drowning accidents causing ice cream sales? Does this mean that people have become so selfish and morally vile that they prefer to buy ice cream and watching people drown than trying to save them!? Fortunately, not really. Just because two variables vary together does not mean that one caused the other. "

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 8^th, 2015 at 7:09pm by gizmo_2655 »

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #216 - May 8^th, 2015 at 7:04pm

progressiveslol wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 12:56pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 11:58am:

Bobby. wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 11:21pm:

Dear beloved Chimp,
you have taken this thread off course with wild speculation.

CO2 may very well have almost no affect on temperature.

Ever notice how cold it is when there are no clouds at night?
It's the water vapor that keeps the heat in - not CO2.

forgiven

namaste

Water Vapor is the greenhouse effect:

CO2 is a major GHG that drives it!

Solubility in water decreases with increasing temperature so when the planets pull the earth into a warm orbit CO2 outgasses and drives more water vapour into the air sustaining an enhanced greenhouse effect in a what's known as a positive feedback loop.

When the planets pull the earth back into a cold orbit the CO2 returns to the ocean because solubility in water has increased with the decreasing temperature and another positive feedback loop in the oppositie direction results in a sustained and decreasing greehouse effect.

Shall we do another billion word circle jerk?? (You really haven't done much reading yourself have ya buddy Cheesy

..or are you just pretending and playing pause button politics so industry can retool for the new paradigm Roll Eyes

)

It's called a complex relationship but you know all that and pretend you don't because you hate the kids that much Cheesy

NO. You are doing the IM CONFIDENT of the unknowns. No sorry, you don't know at all.

if you're happy to put that on the internet for eternity then so be it!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #217 - May 8^th, 2015 at 7:11pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 6:58pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 2:46pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 12:37am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 12:04am:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 11:52pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:51pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:48pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:42pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:19pm:

Soren wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 9:01pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 7:31pm:

the CO2 concentration in the earths atmosphere has breached the 400 ppmv level

Oooh... it has breached the 0.04% mark!!!!!

Plant food has breached the 0.04% mark!! Run for the hills!!!!

when did the atmospheric CO2 concentration last breach the 400 ppmv level?

Anytime before about 100,000 years ago.

Exactly.

And how many permanent human settlements existed before 100,000 years ago?

Almost none from what I've read/studied. They were mostly hunter/gatherers at that stage.

Very good!

So - can you now explain to us why you think your question was relevant?

We are talking about something happening now - that is impacting significantly on permanent human habitations and their associated infrastructure.

Why is what may or may not have happened 100,000 years ago relevant?

Since the Co2 levels were above 400 ppm 100,000 years, without human industry or action (and during a Glaciation) why are you so sure that 400 ppm of Co2 has anything to do with the recent warming or was even mostly caused by human industry??

Correlation Wink

Yes, correlation, as opposed to causation...

First there must be correlation!

Which really does NOT mean that Co2 is the cause (causality) of warming...it just means that warming and Co2 are both 'increasing' at the same time... Cheesy

It's all probability: thus the meaning of complex systems arriving at solutions with associated error value. You can still try and disprove gravity if you want: why don't you spend the rest of your life giving it a try Wink

Geez this forum loves it when you let me own you: break out the bourbon and coke fellas- gizmos always loved me and has regularly volunteered participation for our collective enjoyment Kiss

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #218 - May 8^th, 2015 at 7:13pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 6:58pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 2:46pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 12:37am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 12:04am:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 11:52pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:51pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:48pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:42pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:19pm:

Soren wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 9:01pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 7:31pm:

the CO2 concentration in the earths atmosphere has breached the 400 ppmv level

Oooh... it has breached the 0.04% mark!!!!!

Plant food has breached the 0.04% mark!! Run for the hills!!!!

when did the atmospheric CO2 concentration last breach the 400 ppmv level?

Anytime before about 100,000 years ago.

Exactly.

And how many permanent human settlements existed before 100,000 years ago?

Almost none from what I've read/studied. They were mostly hunter/gatherers at that stage.

Very good!

So - can you now explain to us why you think your question was relevant?

We are talking about something happening now - that is impacting significantly on permanent human habitations and their associated infrastructure.

Why is what may or may not have happened 100,000 years ago relevant?

Since the Co2 levels were above 400 ppm 100,000 years, without human industry or action (and during a Glaciation) why are you so sure that 400 ppm of Co2 has anything to do with the recent warming or was even mostly caused by human industry??

Correlation Wink

Yes, correlation, as opposed to causation...

First there must be correlation!

Which really does NOT mean that Co2 is the cause (causality) of warming...it just means that warming and Co2 are both 'increasing' at the same time... Cheesy

"1. Confusing correlation with causation

A correlation is when two variables vary together, whereas causation occurs when one factor causes the other. It may be tempting to think that the former implies the latter, but that is hardly ever the case. For instance, ice cream sales may increase in the summer and decrease in the winter. The same may be true for drowning accidents. Does this mean we can draw the conclusion that drowning accidents causing ice cream sales? Does this mean that people have become so selfish and morally vile that they prefer to buy ice cream and watching people drown than trying to save them!? Fortunately, not really. Just because two variables vary together does not mean that one caused the other. "

lol: felt the need to qualify that quick retort did you: lol, we at this forum all love you so very very much gizmo Kiss

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #219 - May 8^th, 2015 at 7:15pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 6:58pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 2:46pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 12:37am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 12:04am:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 11:52pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:51pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:48pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:42pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 10:19pm:

Soren wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 9:01pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 7:31pm:

the CO2 concentration in the earths atmosphere has breached the 400 ppmv level

Oooh... it has breached the 0.04% mark!!!!!

Plant food has breached the 0.04% mark!! Run for the hills!!!!

when did the atmospheric CO2 concentration last breach the 400 ppmv level?

Anytime before about 100,000 years ago.

Exactly.

And how many permanent human settlements existed before 100,000 years ago?

Almost none from what I've read/studied. They were mostly hunter/gatherers at that stage.

Very good!

So - can you now explain to us why you think your question was relevant?

We are talking about something happening now - that is impacting significantly on permanent human habitations and their associated infrastructure.

Why is what may or may not have happened 100,000 years ago relevant?

Since the Co2 levels were above 400 ppm 100,000 years, without human industry or action (and during a Glaciation) why are you so sure that 400 ppm of Co2 has anything to do with the recent warming or was even mostly caused by human industry??

Correlation Wink

Yes, correlation, as opposed to causation...

First there must be correlation!

Which really does NOT mean that Co2 is the cause (causality) of warming...it just means that warming and Co2 are both 'increasing' at the same time... Cheesy

"1. Confusing correlation with causation

A correlation is when two variables vary together, whereas causation occurs when one factor causes the other. It may be tempting to think that the former implies the latter, but that is hardly ever the case. For instance, ice cream sales may increase in the summer and decrease in the winter. The same may be true for drowning accidents. Does this mean we can draw the conclusion that drowning accidents causing ice cream sales? Does this mean that people have become so selfish and morally vile that they prefer to buy ice cream and watching people drown than trying to save them!? Fortunately, not really. Just because two variables vary together does not mean that one caused the other. "

you are so inept: Cheesy

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #220 - May 8^th, 2015 at 7:15pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 1:56pm:

How is the premise wrong...IF Co2 levels were at or over 400 ppm during a Glacial event, then the Co2 levels we currently have are not causing warming.

You're bastardizing the issue. Your premise, if I am reading you right, is that CO2 was > 400ppm for a reasonably prolonged period approximately 100,000 years ago. This is incorrect.

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #221 - May 8^th, 2015 at 7:37pm

John_Taverner wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 7:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 1:56pm:

How is the premise wrong...IF Co2 levels were at or over 400 ppm during a Glacial event, then the Co2 levels we currently have are not causing warming.

You're bastardizing the issue. Your premise, if I am reading you right, is that CO2 was > 400ppm for a reasonably prolonged period approximately 100,000 years ago. This is incorrect.

Is it??

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

John_Taverner Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2217 Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #222 - May 8^th, 2015 at 7:48pm Yes it is.
Back to top	IP Logged

gizmo_2655 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 16010 South West NSW Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #223 - May 8^th, 2015 at 7:52pm John_Taverner wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 7:48pm: Yes it is. No it's not.. What is your proof, other than Al Gore said so, or 75 out of 77 'scientists' said so??
Back to top	"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition. It's similar to a strawman fallacy" Bobbythebat IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #224 - May 8^th, 2015 at 7:55pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 7:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 1:56pm:

How is the premise wrong...IF Co2 levels were at or over 400 ppm during a Glacial event, then the Co2 levels we currently have are not causing warming.

You're bastardizing the issue. Your premise, if I am reading you right, is that CO2 was > 400ppm for a reasonably prolonged period approximately 100,000 years ago. This is incorrect.

Is it??
http://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/old_root/%231%20CO2EarthHi...

what the ?? Shocked

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged