Oh Oh Kenney got caught

[furrowtickler]

Oh drat! Foiled by the grammar policeman!

Let me re-phrase. We have been able to reliably able to measure atmospheric CO2 concentrations for the past 800,000 years. During that time we have had a wide range of climatic conditions, from glaciation to warmer global temps than we have now. Yet CO2 levels never exceeded 300 ppm.
Current CO2 levels exceed 400 ppm and we do not know definitely when this level has been reached before OR what the climate was exactly like at the 400ppm level. There are many theories and estimations but all indicate a warmer global climate when CO2 levels were higher. To argue if it is uncharted CO2 or uncharted climate is semantics at best and does nothing to settle the climate change debate. But based on the 800,000 chart I would argue there is a definite correlation between the two - but exactly what that relationship is (chicken and the egg) and how global temperature will be impacted by a measured level of CO2 that we have not seen 800,000 years means we are in uncharted territory.

[dmlfarmer]

You have that backwards. We are in uncharted CO2 territory(in recent times at least). But, in spite of that, we are still well within charted territory for climate. Indicating a very poor relationship between the two. Which is why it is a much better argument to use.

Oh drat! Foiled by the grammar policeman!

Let me re-phrase. We have been able to reliably measure atmospheric CO2 concentrations for the past 800,000 years. During that time we have had a wide range of climatic conditions, from glaciation to warmer global temps than we have now. Yet CO2 levels never exceeded 300 ppm.
Current CO2 levels exceed 400 ppm and we do not know definitely when this level has been reached before OR what the climate was exactly like at the 400ppm level. There are many theories and estimations but all indicate a warmer global climate when CO2 levels were higher. To argue if it is uncharted CO2 or uncharted climate is semantics at best and does nothing to settle the climate change debate. But based on the 800,000 year chart I would argue there is a definite correlation between the two - but exactly what that relationship is (chicken and the egg) and how global temperature will be impacted by a measured level of CO2 that has never happened in 800,000 years means we are in uncharted territory.

[checking]

Reasonable would be to begin talk if CO2 levels went beyond the 800 ppm where plants thrive.

A constant alarm at 400 ppm - really!

[wd9]

But it also makes it impossible to refute my statement that we are in totally uncharted climate territory with current CO2 levels over 400ppm when they have never exceeded 300ppm over the past 800,000 years including the Holocene optimum which started roughly 12,000 years ago and during which time CO2 levels never exceeded 300ppm.

But think how great plants will grow with that level......

[AlbertaFarmer5]

But it also makes it impossible to refute my statement that we are in totally uncharted climate territory with current CO2 levels over 400ppm when they have never exceeded 300ppm over the past 800,000 years including the Holocene optimum which started roughly 12,000 years ago and during which time CO2 levels never exceeded 300ppm.

You have that backwards. We are in uncharted CO2 territory(in recent times at least). But, in spite of that, we are still well within charted territory for climate. Indicating a very poor relationship between the two. Which is why it is a much better argument to use.

[dmlfarmer]

[QUOTE=furrowtickler;405659]

99% of us don’t rely on irrigation.... just to clear that up .

Oh and probably the same for water, most comes from wells .

lol, speaking globally and not just about farmers. (How many cities today rely on wells, compared to rivers for water) Most prairie farmers do not have ocean front property (on the prairies) now either, yet same likely could not be said during the time period when dinosaurs roamed the Arctic (unless the farm was on an island in the inland sea)

[dmlfarmer]

For those of you still willing to Engage with the alarmists on this, You don't have to go back millions of Years to find irrefutable evidence of when the climate was better (warmer) than it is today, Just back to the Holocene optimum, Which occurred within the same interglacial we are currently enjoying. Retreating glaciers are constantly uncovering the evidence for this period, as well as the medieval warm period. I would stick with that logic, not going back millions of years. It is much harder for them to discredit.

But it also makes it impossible to refute my statement that we are in totally uncharted climate territory with current CO2 levels over 400ppm when they have never exceeded 300ppm over the past 800,000 years including the Holocene optimum which started roughly 12,000 years ago and during which time CO2 levels never exceeded 300ppm.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

For those of you still willing to Engage with the alarmists on this, You don't have to go back millions of Years to find irrefutable evidence of when the climate was better (warmer) than it is today, Just back to the Holocene optimum, Which occurred within the same interglacial we are currently enjoying. Retreating glaciers are constantly uncovering the evidence for this period, as well as the medieval warm period. I would stick with that logic, not going back millions of years. It is much harder for them to discredit.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

For those of you still willing to Engage with the alarmists on this, You don't have to go back millions of Years to find irrefutable evidence of when the climate was better (warmer) than it is today, Just back to the Holocene optimum, Which occurred within the same interglacial we are currently enjoying. Retreating glaciers are constantly uncovering the evidence for this period, as well as the medieval warm period. I would stick with that logic, not going back millions of years. It is much harder for them to discredit.

[furrowtickler]

[QUOTE=dmlfarmer;405658]

I did so but it did not answer the questions I asked you so I will ask you again.

BTW, you also ignore a number of important facts relating to the palm trees and crocodiles in the Arctic. Besides there being no mankind, or society 50,000,000 years ago sea levels were estimated to be 200 feet higher ( so much for most of habited area on earth today), that all the middle of the North American continent was an inland sea (which is why western Canada is blessed with oil and potash), that there were no glaciers or ice caps which today supply much of the rivers that we rely on for irrigation, and water supplies. https://www.google.ca/search?q=what+the+earth+looked+like+50+million+yea rs+ago&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CcWMnwtfI9FmIjhpkX9LacfEu f3SKqgnWSEzsm5YxK4j1dAAVVciVnQof-qmd8FnmJlzD8iPQO-zkP0YRb_1GAqDnwyoSCWmRf0tpx8S5Eb0NhTpAtqqxKhIJ_1dI qqCdZITMRKtQ1VEhUd7YqEgmybljEriPV0BHTrKE3N03P2ioSC QBVVyJWdCh_1EWquKt0quyPhKhIJ6qZ3wWeYmXMRTAC81XDCBO YqEgkPyI9A77OQ_1REP4O6YocXiJyoSCRhFv8YCoOfDEYtFd6d 54iSG&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi27pDO_JPhAhUp6oMKHcJt BPkQ9C96BAgBEBg&biw=1920&bih=932&dpr=1#imgrc=_m4C9 X6LOHG7YM:&spf=1553196922360 https://www.google.ca/search?q=what+the+earth+looked+like+50+million+yea rs+ago&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CcWMnwtfI9FmIjhpkX9LacfEu f3SKqgnWSEzsm5YxK4j1dAAVVciVnQof-qmd8FnmJlzD8iPQO-zkP0YRb_1GAqDnwyoSCWmRf0tpx8S5Eb0NhTpAtqqxKhIJ_1dI qqCdZITMRKtQ1VEhUd7YqEgmybljEriPV0BHTrKE3N03P2ioSC QBVVyJWdCh_1EWquKt0quyPhKhIJ6qZ3wWeYmXMRTAC81XDCBO YqEgkPyI9A77OQ_1REP4O6YocXiJyoSCRhFv8YCoOfDEYtFd6d 54iSG&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi27pDO_JPhAhUp6oMKHcJt BPkQ9C96BAgBEBg&biw=1920&bih=932&dpr=1#imgrc=_m4C9 X6LOHG7YM:&spf=1553196922360

99% of us don’t rely on irrigation.... just to clear that up .

Oh and probably the same for water, most comes from wells .