Chuck explain?

[dmlfarmer]

Oh now you can’t use before-man existed it is bad.

It’s the history and cab be proven by science not pick and choose

YOUR CLAIM (post 21) not mine! The geological studies which show high CO2 levels in preshistoric times also show the 100 ppmv levels during the Miocene epoch which are 1/4 present day values and invalidating your claim of lowest levels in history of the world. It is you picking and choosing data.

[SASKFARMER]

I love how you guys pick and choose.

Maybe read a book on the subject instead of bringing up charts.

It's a scam and you know it. It's all about moving wealth.

And as all good liberals did I Spell it all right and punctuate because that probably is also wrong.

The main reason the Climate scam is working on some is that their little brains can't see a million years ago so it doesn't register. It's like the polar bears dying, Stupid people who believe will never travel to the artic or see a polar bear so they are easy to fool.

One newspaper does a claim that the great reefs are dying, but yet nowhere it can be shown or proven. They get headlines and the sheep believe.

It's rather a great way stupid people cant figure it out so it grows and grows because most can't see. Basing most on the last 50 or so years most can't see or remember or ever talked to someone about the thirty or earlier on planet earth so they believe whatever scam is out there.

Again best thing since Siegfried and Roy. Magic.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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

Don't let dml and Chuck get hung up on semantics. When you take the long view, your statement is correct. Compared to historical levels, current CO2 is still virtually rock bottom, and was on its way to extinction levels eventually before we rescued life on earth by releasing some of the CO2 sequestered back during the carboniferous. Buying some time (still waiting for Chuck to figure out how much time we have bought at these levels, unfortunately, no one seems to know).

It is so humbing to consider geologic history, such as the graph above.
Life has survived (although just barely a few times) through all of that range of conditions.
Coral reefs started at about the same time as that graph, back when CO2 levels were more than 10 times higher than today, and they also survived temperatures 10 degrees warmer than now.

Now we have the hubris to think they can't survive in any conditions beyond what occured at the depth of the little ice age. Nature will make a fool of all of us eventually.

[TASFarms]

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.france24.com/en/20180129-france-trial-carbon-credits-fraud-paris-crime-emissions-scam-melgrani-marseille


Carbon tax It’s a scam. There is no debating it. The science is settled.

[fjlip]

I have lots of Climate Change killing charts...






Same old question, WHO the F*ck wants COLDER?

[FarmJunkie]

The fact is and it’s a fact! If u look back thru all the predictions these wingnuts have made u would be hard pressed to find one that has come true. The odds are in their favour that they will eventually get one right. Scare scare scare. It’s all our fault. Humans are the bad guys. If the sun quit shining tomorrow.........drop the mic. Christ sakes already. U would think u would have figured out already that there are charts that prove this hypothesis and charts that prove the opposite. It’s all setup up to confuse the hell out of everyone. All u have to do is watch CNN and Fox. Same subject totally different ends of the spectrum. Who’s right whose wrong? They don’t want u to know just confuse u! Thus just look at our society. Fighting over bullshit.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

YOUR CLAIM (post 21) not mine! The geological studies which show high CO2 levels in preshistoric times also show the 100 ppmv levels during the Miocene epoch which are 1/4 present day values and invalidating your claim of lowest levels in history of the world. It is you picking and choosing data.

dml, you are making this too easy. You refuted your own post, within your own post.
Where did you possibly derive the 100 ppm figure from?
You do realize that below 150 ppm photosynthesis stops, the food chain collapses and life on earth goes extinct? Spoiler alert, that didn't actually occur, as evidenced by the continued existence of life on earth today.

I only bring this up to support the statement that current levels are so close to the lowest in history that it falls within the margin of error.

I assume you read the above graph and guessed at the 100 ppm. And because the graph goes up to 8000 ppm to include the full range of concentrations over 600 million years, it is impossible to detect a difference of a even few hundred ppm, as evidenced by your 100 ppm guess. Data from stomata of fossilized leaves indicates Miocene CO2 levels fluctuated between 3 to 7 times more than your estimate throughout the epoch.

The difference between todays near starvation levels of CO2, and the actual starvation levels at the height of the last ice age equates to only 3% of the total 7000 ppm range of CO2 levels over the past 600 million years. In other words, we are only 3% higher than the lowest level since life began, compared to the highest level. That difference is undetectable on a linear graph, as you were kind enough to point out for us.

When are you going to take my advice and have your BS detector recalibrated? It seems to be working completely opposite to how it is supposed to.

[dmlfarmer]

dml, you are making this too easy. You refuted your own post, within your own post.
Where did you possibly derive the 100 ppm figure from?
You do realize that below 150 ppm photosynthesis stops, the food chain collapses and life on earth goes extinct? Spoiler alert, that didn't actually occur, as evidenced by the continued existence of life on earth today.

I only bring this up to support the statement that current levels are so close to the lowest in history that it falls within the margin of error.

I assume you read the above graph and guessed at the 100 ppm. And because the graph goes up to 8000 ppm to include the full range of concentrations over 600 million years, it is impossible to detect a difference of a even few hundred ppm, as evidenced by your 100 ppm guess. Data from stomata of fossilized leaves indicates Miocene CO2 levels fluctuated between 3 to 7 times more than your estimate throughout the epoch.

The difference between todays near starvation levels of CO2, and the actual starvation levels at the height of the last ice age equates to only 3% of the total 7000 ppm range of CO2 levels over the past 600 million years. In other words, we are only 3% higher than the lowest level since life began, compared to the highest level. That difference is undetectable on a linear graph, as you were kind enough to point out for us.

When are you going to take my advice and have your BS detector recalibrated? It seems to be working completely opposite to how it is supposed to.

AF5 when are you going to follow the links posted that back up claims instead of thinking you know everything? I provided the direct quote where I got the 100ppm figure as well as the link to the page on which this figure was posted. It appears you are too lazy to follow a link associated with data I presented and would rather simply insult and claim I must have made that figure up. Go back to the post where I quoted the 100 ppm, and follow the link posted right beside it if you want to see where the figure comes from.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that in the 800,000 years homo sapiens have been walking this planet CO2 levels have consistently cycled between 180 and 300 ppm, lower in periods of glaciation and higher in interglacial periods. Yet in the last 150 years that cycle has been broken and is now measured CO2 levels are 1/3 higher than any point in man's history. You claim that this increase is not significant based on prehistoric CO2 levels, but it is most certainly is significant in the time man has been around.

You claim that this higher CO2 will green the earth and it definitely will in parts of the world where there is adequate precipitation to account for more growth and higher temperatures. But at the same time it may also bring about changes in weather that have negative impacts. Shifts in trade winds, more severe storms, wet conditions when we need dry etc. Just because plants grow better in higher CO2 levels does not mean there may not be negative consequences as well.

Anyway, I tried not to get into climate change discussions as the forum was crying about it being all that the "leftists" talk about. However, when Saskfarmer started this thread with his claim that current C02 levels are the lowest in the history of the world I had to call BS because actual data proves this not to be true and even you refuse to look at 800,000 years of data that proves this to be false and instead deflect into insults.

Oh and by the way you do realize that at one point in earths history there was little O2 in the atmosphere right and yet through the wonders on nature, bacteria in the oceans converted the atmosphere to one which now supports man and animals. There have been a number of mass extinction events where we have lost entire species yet somehow life regenerates, although different. To claim that earth could never support any type of life again if co2 levels fall below your magic number of 150 is very narrow minded thinking.

[oneoff]

And just why does anyone want to go back to a mile high layer of ice over Canada just so we have 180 ppm CO2.

Wouldn't hurt to entertain the thought that the current interglacial period was scheduledby Mother Nature alone.

Summarized as a 5th glaciation period (on Mother Natures schedule ...alone) will have longer lasting and more consequential changes than global warming caused partially human releasing of stored carbon.

At least consider the thought.

[dmlfarmer]

Oneoff you are absolutely right, no one wants an ice age. But no one in saskatchewan wants it to be an inland sea either as was the case in prehistoric times when CO2 was very high. No one wants all coastal areas to be submerged and having to relocate a quarter or more of the population of the world. No one wants topics to become uninhabitable because of high tempertures and having the resultant flood of mass migration to cooler areas like Canada. This scenerio is just as ludicrous as claims that unless we burn fossil fuels we are going to be under a mile of ice in a few years.

The point is, man does not know with certainty the actual impact a level of 415 PPM and rising of CO2 on our enviornment, weather, and health because it has never happened in the time man has been on this planet. We know permafrost that has never melted is now melting. What viruses could be trapped in that ice that could make any pandemic man has survived look like just a headache? We know the glaciers that supply much of the fresh water around the world are melting at an increasing rate. What does man do when they are gone?

Lets be honest, we are not going to shut down use of fossil fuels tomorrow or ever. And it will never be all or nothing. Green energy is never going to replace fossil fuels 100% or fossil fuels will never stop adaptation to green energy 100% and anyone trying to make the argument that 100% is impossible is hurting their own position. But we can certainly reduce the use of them to slow emissions.

There are always better ways of doing anything. Smart people look for those ways. Fools are those who insist the current ways are the only way and refuse to adapt.

[dmlfarmer]

A century ago this same type of argument was being made by farmers over replacing horses with tractors. Most farmers were convinced that horses were superior and the work that they do on a farm would never be replaced by an internal combustion engine. WW1 pushed farms to mechanization as horses were needed in the war effort. Still it was after the second world war before most farms stopped using horses completely.

Interestingly, horses were replaced in cities before on farms not because of convenience and efficiency but because it reduced pollution. City dwellers were tired of the horse s**t covering the streets, the smell, and the flies and they drove the adaptation of automobile. Just as city people are driving e cars and green energy.

Farmers are going to get steamrolled unless we show what we do is environmentally superior and we actually store carbon rather than emit it.

[chuckChuck]

Scientist know that there is a time lag between rising and higher CO2 levels and global temperature increases. The reason we are seeing relatively modest increases in global temperatures instead of very dramatic increases at these historically higher levels of C02 is because most of the warming energy has gone into oceans. It takes a hell of a lot of energy to warm the worlds massive oceans.

On the May long weekend go for a swim in your nearest lake. The air temperature may have warmed up beyond 20 degrees C, but the lake temperature has not. It will take several weeks of warm summer temperatures to push the lake temperatures up a few degrees.

There is no impending ice age coming. You can take the idea of an ice age off the radar. Global glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice mass are shrinking significantly. There is not one scientific organization that says we are heading back into an ice age. On the contrary, climate scientists are predicting significant warming which we are already beginning to see.