Chuck explain?

[SASKFARMER]

We’re at the lowest levels of Co2 in the history of the world yet CO2 is the problem.

Sask was once a tropical paradise part under a ocean at ten times the Co2 we have now.

We’re not even close.

But we’re close to Co2 levels of the last ice age.

Maybe don’t cut and paste and give a explanation.

Real science can prove the above chart, not just look and Pick a few years to make up shit.

[blackpowder]

Damn it man.

[sumdumguy]

Oh no, their Suzuki and Gore scientists are concocting BS stats like trojans while their pockets are bursting.

[SASKFARMER]

It's all about the money. It's that simple, most things in life you follow the money trail.

I wouldn't doubt a top liberal is getting money for going green that really isn't green.

[jazz]

In the climate activist world, history starts at 1981 for some reason.

[SASKFARMER]

Fun with numbers they can then make anything seem serious. But real science can prove Co2 millions of years back

[agstar77]

https://www.bing.com/search?q=j69i60.5741j0j4%26FORM%3DANAB01%26PC%3DHC TS&cvid=1045fb6ab93d4934a5fee8196532700e&aqs=edge. .69i57.6244j0j9&FORM=ANAB01&PC=HCTS if not global warning ,What?

[chuckChuck]

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm


Previous climates can be explained by natural causes, while current climate change can only be explained by an excess of CO2 released by human fossil fuel burning. Records of past climates indicate that change happened on time scales of thousands to millions of years. The global rise in temperature that has occurred over the past 150 years is unprecedented and has our fingerprints all over it.

Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.
Abrupt vs slow change.

Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.

Lush Eocene Arctic 50 million years ago

But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today.

Those abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (a big, rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification) are all happening today with human-caused climate change.

So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth.

[biglentil]

Co2 is their enemy because it makes the earth more lush and abundant. That doesn't fit their agenda. Billy Gates is literally attempting to blot out the sun with nanoparticles released into the upper atmosphere.

[SASKFARMER]

Very nice cut and paste chuck.

Why are our levels right now the lowest level since the great ice age yet it’s a problem now.

[agstar77]

Co2 is their enemy because it makes the earth more lush and abundant. That doesn't fit their agenda. Billy Gates is literally attempting to blot out the sun with nanoparticles released into the upper atmosphere.

That is fine if plants have moisture to go with the CO2.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck doesn't explain. You need to understand a topic in order to explain it. Chuck will regurgitate the prechewed pablum that the science denier websites present just for such an occasion. But ask him to paraphrase in his own words and all he will come up with is to call you a flat earther.

He is however very good at belittling, lecturing, name calling, deflecting, subject changing. and of course finding irrelevant cut and paste that he still doesn't understand, but hopes they are on topic.

Of course, he could always prove me wrong. Here is a paper ( no paywall) that indicates there is no positive corellation between temperature and CO2. Please read and explain in your own words where you disagree with the author.

the most striking observation from the visual comparison is the "apparent dissociation and even an antiphasic relationship" among the two variables.... do not appear qualitatively, at least, to bear any definitive relationship with fluctuations in the atmospheric concentration of CO2" (emphasis added), (5) "regression of linearly-detrended temperature proxies against atmospheric CO2 concentration proxy data reveals a weak but discernible negative correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature," and (6) "the percent of variance in temperature that can be explained by variance in atmospheric CO2 concentration, or conversely, R2 × 100, is 3.6%, [indicating that] more than 95% of the variance in temperature is explained by unidentified variables other than the atmospheric concentration of CO2."

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/pdf https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/pdf

[AlbertaFarmer5]

That is fine if plants have moisture to go with the CO2.

Even better news. increased CO2 also significantly reduces plants ( except C4 plants) water needs, making them much more drought tolerant. You don't even need to increase the moisture to see the benefits of increased CO2. You could even decrease it and still see large benefits.

Miraculous little molecule.

[sumdumguy]

Ottawa announces $100,000,000 to Montreal for 100 jobs. Yep $1,000,000 per job building car batteries. Tax incentives are grants to oil industry but direct-deposit to green BS is not a subsidy?

[dmlfarmer]

Very nice cut and paste chuck.

Why are our levels right now the lowest level since the great ice age yet it’s a problem now.

They are not at the lowest level since the last ice age or in the history of the world as you claim. In fact they are more than double the concentration at their low point of the last glaciation period. And they are more than 1/3 higher than the highest concentration reached over the last 7 glaciation periods.

The last time glaciers covered North America (ending about 11,000 years ago) ice core samples in Antarctica showed CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere at 180ppm. The highest CO2 levels reached before 1950 and in the last 800,000 years (again based on ice core data) in which time there were repeated glaciations on earth was 300ppm. Today the CO2 concentration is about 415 ppm.