Mike is claiming that CO2 levels were as high as 140,000 ppm at some point in the Earth's past for which there is no information. And it would have likely have triggered a run away greenhouse effect if CO2 levels ever did get that high. Basic physics makes this highly unlikely.
...subaerial volcanic outgassing raised atmospheric carbon dioxide to about 350 times the modern level."
You're right. I should've done the math before posting. Mike is, once again, taking one study out of context and using it to spread his disinformation. Worse, he's taking one line from the abstract (which was not in the abstract I found at pubmed, btw) and presenting it as if it bolsters his case. It does not. One study in a biomedical journal does not negate the thousands of studies published in climatology journals. Science does not work like that, but then again Mike doesn't understand science doesn't work by legal definitions and he discounts observations in science.
Edit: fixed a typo
You're right. I should've done the match before posting. Mike is, once again, taking one study out of context and using it to spread his disinformation. Worse, he's taking one line from the abstract (which was not in the abstract I found at pubmed, btw) and presenting it as if it bolsters his case. It does not. One study in a biomedical journal does not negate the thousands of studies published in climatology journals. Science does not work like that, but then again Mike doesn't understand science doesn't work by legal definitions and he discounts observations in science.
There's no question that atmospheric CO2 levels have varied in the past, sometimes significantly from now, but as you also stated that doesn't mean that there aren't very serious impacts from forcing dramatic climate change on a biosphere that has adapted and evolved for millions of years to exist on an Earth with much lower average global temperatures due to the lower levels of CO2.
Claims by deniers of the safety of forcing climate change due to earlier much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere ignore the chaotic and catastrophic transition the global biosphere would go through to adapt to the new and rapidly forced changes. They also contradict their own claims that CO2 isn't a prime moderator in the global climate. If CO2 isn't important as Mike - as many deniers claim - then claiming that earlier and much warmer times were due to much higher levels of CO2 refutes their own position. It's just more moving goal posts the denial movement is based on.
There is no internal consistency with global warming denial, which would make sense as it's not attempting to explain the physical features we see in the world around us, it's entirely centered on neutralizing the valid and very well supported evidence of human forced global warming. Mike's posts taken in entirety make no sense because his entire position as denial itself is is anti-evidence, anti-reason, and anti-life in the end.
This is why deniers like Mike are unable to present any evidence to support their claims that climate change isn't serious and that we aren't responsible through things like massive emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming
There are virtually no peer reviewed evidence based scientific studies that contradict the fact that human generated CO2 is a very serious issues with existential ramifications for our and many other species.
I have brought my previous study (see here and here) up-to-date by reviewing peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors. (Download the chart above here.) Only one article, by a single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming. I discuss that article here.
It's not that people who are deeply concerned about this issue just don't get it which is the central thesis of deniers like Mike Yohe, it's that all the credible evidence is in support of getting off of fossil fuels as fast as possible.
No matter what the lunatic fringe keeps claiming...
Why am I not able to make these claims? Because they are not my views or beliefs, you dummy. You are lying and saying how I think and you are a hundred miles off base. Show me your proof. You need a denier to promote your alarmist views. Sorry, I am not your guy. When are you going to figure out that your tactics are doing more harm than good? You keep going back over the same decade old items over and over again. That denier BS you are trying to sell has been dead in the media for some time now.
And your fix is to get off of fossil fuels as fast as possible. That’s just hot air without a method. Lower your sugar consumption, there I just save millions of lives using your method.
Mike is claiming that CO2 levels were as high as 140,000 ppm at some point in the Earth's past for which there is no information. And it would have likely have triggered a run away greenhouse effect if CO2 levels ever did get that high. Basic physics makes this highly unlikely.
...subaerial volcanic outgassing raised atmospheric carbon dioxide to about 350 times the modern level."
You're right. I should've done the math before posting. Mike is, once again, taking one study out of context and using it to spread his disinformation. Worse, he's taking one line from the abstract (which was not in the abstract I found at pubmed, btw) and presenting it as if it bolsters his case. It does not. One study in a biomedical journal does not negate the thousands of studies published in climatology journals. Science does not work like that, but then again Mike doesn't understand science doesn't work by legal definitions and he discounts observations in science.
Edit: fixed a typo
Of these thousands of studies you have researched. What is the maximum CO2 the earth can hold. If you want to read the article you say you can't find, I have post the name of the article and the authors That is all you need.
When the window comes up that ask you what you want, type in the authors or the name of the article and it will appear. It is a government website, so don't expect it to be like the rest of the websites.
I myself think the maximum for the gauge should be somewhere from 5 to 7 thousand on the full end. Did you not read my posts. But, should the gauge be based on what I think or what has been published. I agree with the 180 ppm as the empty. But I have never done any tests of the atmosphere myself. I rely on what has been put into articles and had the chance to be disputed. You are not disputing me, you are disputing the four authors of the paper. I have not seen where anyone has disputed their figures other that use their own figures. And like the computer models, the numbers use by different authors never seem to agree because of so many pathways of data that can be used in the math. So, tell me, you say they are wrong. Where were they wrong and what numbers should they have used. And what is the correct lower CO2 limit if not 180? Are those numbers right or wrong according to you?
Mike is claiming that CO2 levels were as high as 140,000 ppm at some point in the Earth's past for which there is no information. And it would have likely have triggered a run away greenhouse effect if CO2 levels ever did get that high. Basic physics makes this highly unlikely.
...subaerial volcanic outgassing raised atmospheric carbon dioxide to about 350 times the modern level."
You're right. I should've done the math before posting. Mike is, once again, taking one study out of context and using it to spread his disinformation. Worse, he's taking one line from the abstract (which was not in the abstract I found at pubmed, btw) and presenting it as if it bolsters his case. It does not. One study in a biomedical journal does not negate the thousands of studies published in climatology journals. Science does not work like that, but then again Mike doesn't understand science doesn't work by legal definitions and he discounts observations in science.
Edit: fixed a typo
Of these thousands of studies you have researched. What is the maximum CO2 the earth can hold. If you want to read the article you say you can't find, I have post the name of the article and the authors That is all you need.
When the window comes up that ask you what you want, type in the authors or the name of the article and it will appear. It is a government website, so don't expect it to be like the rest of the websites.
I myself think the maximum for the gauge should be somewhere from 5 to 7 thousand on the full end. Did you not read my posts. But, should the gauge be based on what I think or what has been published. I agree with the 180 ppm as the empty. But I have never done any tests of the atmosphere myself. I rely on what has been put into articles and had the chance to be disputed. You are not disputing me, you are disputing the four authors of the paper. I have not seen where anyone has disputed their figures other that use their own figures. And like the computer models, the numbers use by different authors never seem to agree because of so many pathways of data that can be used in the math. So, tell me, you say they are wrong. Where were they wrong and what numbers should they have used. And what is the correct lower CO2 limit if not 180? Are those numbers right or wrong according to you?
Apparently your reading skills are as poor as your writing skills. I found the article. The abstract does not sentence the quote you quoted. And just what the hell do you mean by "I myself think the maximum for the gauge should be somewhere from 5 to 7 thousand on the full end"? And I didd not say they were wrong, I said one study's conclusions do not negate thousands of other peer-reviewed studies. Get a grip. You're sliding into dementia with these posts.
Of these thousands of studies you have researched. What is the maximum CO2 the earth can hold.
Asshole, it's not about how much Earth's atmosphere can possibly hold!
It about human society evolving under a set climate regime and now we're cranking up the atmospheric insulation medium.
This in turn will alter weather systems, climate patterns into a more energetic (and erratic) range that humanity is not equipped to cope with.
The more of this insulation we keep pumping into our atmosphere the wilder the ride is going to get.
Not to mention the atmospheric CO2 that is being absorbed by (forced into) the oceans and that is radically disrupting the web of life, that we depend on for more than your blinkered brain, and malicious intent, is capable of grasping.
Panel’s Warning on Climate Risk: Worst Is Yet to Come
By JUSTIN GILLIS - MARCH 31, 2014
YOKOHAMA, Japan — Climate change is already having sweeping effects on every continent and throughout the world’s oceans, scientists reported on Monday, and they warned that the problem was likely to grow substantially worse unless greenhouse emissions are brought under control.
The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that periodically summarizes climate science, concluded that ice caps are melting, sea ice in the Arctic is collapsing, water supplies are coming under stress, heat waves and heavy rains are intensifying, coral reefs are dying, and fish and many other creatures are migrating toward the poles or in some cases going extinct.
The oceans are rising at a pace that threatens coastal communities and are becoming more acidic as they absorb some of the carbon dioxide given off by cars and power plants, which is killing some creatures or stunting their growth, the report found.
Organic matter frozen in Arctic soils since before civilization began is now melting, allowing it to decay into greenhouse gases that will cause further warming, the scientists said. And the worst is yet to come, the scientists said in the second of three reports that are expected to carry considerable weight next year as nations try to agree on a new global climate treaty.
In particular, the report emphasized that the world’s food supply is at considerable risk — a threat that could have serious consequences for the poorest nations. ...
“Throughout the 21st century, climate-change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security, and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hot spots of hunger," the report declared.
The report also cited the possibility of violent conflict over land, water or other resources, to which climate change might contribute indirectly “by exacerbating well-established drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks."
The scientists emphasized that climate change is not just a problem of the distant future, but is happening now.
Studies have found that parts of the Mediterranean region are drying out because of climate change, and some experts believe that droughts there have contributed to political destabilization in the Middle East and North Africa.
In much of the American West, mountain snowpack is declining, threatening water supplies for the region, the scientists said in the report. And the snow that does fall is melting earlier in the year, which means there is less melt water to ease the parched summers. In Alaska, the collapse of sea ice is allowing huge waves to strike the coast, causing erosion so rapid that it is already forcing entire communities to relocate.
“Now we are at the point where there is so much information, so much evidence, that we can no longer plead ignorance," Michel Jarraud, secretary general of the World Meteorological Organization, said at the news conference. …
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/science/earth/climate.html?_r=0
Of these thousands of studies you have researched. What is the maximum CO2 the earth can hold.
Asshole, it's not about how much Earth's atmosphere can possibly hold!
You are wrong. That is the question at hand right now “How much CO2 has the atmosphere held." You are the one being an asshole by not understanding the question or subject matter.
What is the lowest and highest amount of CO2 that can be held and has been held by the earth?
Then the second part of the question is - What do think is the best CO2 level for the earth?
You’re the Asshole by not wanting to answer a simple question without creating a tangent, just a simple straight forward answer on the subject matter, not all this BS you listed, is all that is required. What are you afraid of?
This question is the foundation of the CO2 subject. Something that should be understood and can be answered in two seconds by anyone who cares about the earth's CO2 levels.
Apparently your reading skills are as poor as your writing skills. I found the article. The abstract does not sentence the quote you quoted. And just what the hell do you mean by "I myself think the maximum for the gauge should be somewhere from 5 to 7 thousand on the full end"? And I didd not say they were wrong, I said one study's conclusions do not negate thousands of other peer-reviewed studies. Get a grip. You're sliding into dementia with these posts.
Ok, let play the Darron game.
Apparently your reading skills are as poor as your writing skills. I found the article.
In your post #308 you stated - (which was not in the abstract I found at pubmed, btw) and presenting it as if it bolsters his case. It does not.
How am I not to reason that you did not find the article?
“It does not."
Again the task was to find what figures were being used as the maximum and minimum that the earth has had to be able to construct a CO2 gauge, like a gas gauge in a car. And you are so far off base trying to twist this very simple fifth grade task into your own goals of trying to discredit me. In doing that you are claiming that these four authors did not make that claim. That somehow, I personally was making that claim so you could argue the numbers the authors were using. You need to go back and read your dumb ass remarks.
First you claimed that the article did not exist, that I was making it up and should acknowledge that I was wrong – post #287.
Second you say that having research that can hold up in a court case is bad.
Third you think that I am not backing the IPCC finding, again you could not be more wrong.
Then in post #292, you state the link that I gave you because in post #287 you stated that I was just making stuff up, was a link to pubmed. Which, I could not make heads or tails of where you were going with that statement.
Then in post #296 you state that the past high levels of CO2 were irrelevant.
Then in post #308 you start talking about where the authors are posting their papers and how having science that can hold up in a legal manner is not good.
Now in post #312 you are making the statement and connection that the paper buy the four authors as if the work had been reviewed by thousands of other studies. Total misdirection and false. Show me any proof of that. Your statement - “… do not negate thousands of peer-reviewed studies."
Then in post #311, I try and get you back on track and ask you the simple question of what you think the high and low numbers of CO2 that should be used are. Tring to get you back on the subject at hand. You totally disregard the subject matter and provide no numbers.
What numbers of high and low CO2 ppm do you think the earth has had? It is not that hard of a question. Why can you not answer the question?
What kind of idiotic question is that? Why should there be a maximum?
But can people survive a 20% CO2 atmosphere?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
Ship this dude to Venus!
psik
Apparently your reading skills are as poor as your writing skills. I found the article. The abstract does not sentence the quote you quoted. And just what the hell do you mean by "I myself think the maximum for the gauge should be somewhere from 5 to 7 thousand on the full end"? And I didd not say they were wrong, I said one study's conclusions do not negate thousands of other peer-reviewed studies. Get a grip. You're sliding into dementia with these posts.
Ok, let play the Darron game.
Apparently your reading skills are as poor as your writing skills. I found the article.
In your post #308 you stated - (which was not in the abstract I found at pubmed, btw) and presenting it as if it bolsters his case. It does not.
How am I not to reason that you did not find the article?
Because I read the abstract. The page would not load fully so I could not open the article. Why don't you just post a direct link to the article instead of playing seek-and-find games?
“It does not."
Again the task was to find what figures were being used as the maximum and minimum that the earth has had to be able to construct a CO2 gauge, like a gas gauge in a car. And you are so far off base trying to twist this very simple fifth grade task into your own goals of trying to discredit me. In doing that you are claiming that these four authors did not make that claim. That somehow, I personally was making that claim so you could argue the numbers the authors were using. You need to go back and read your dumb ass remarks.
Dumb ass remarks? Did you miss the part where I said one study does not negate thousands of studies? You should take your own advice and read the drivel you've been posting in this thread.
First you claimed that the article did not exist, that I was making it up and should acknowledge that I was wrong – post #287.
See my comment above about playing games.
Second you say that having research that can hold up in a court case is bad.
Where did I say that?
Third you think that I am not backing the IPCC finding, again you could not be more wrong.
You have contradicted yourself every time you posted that you back the IPCC findings by writing something contradictory to their findings.
Then in post #292, you state the link that I gave you because in post #287 you stated that I was just making stuff up, was a link to pubmed. Which, I could not make heads or tails of where you were going with that statement.
Because the link you posted did not lead to the article you said you quoted.
Then in post #296 you state that the past high levels of CO2 were irrelevant.
And I explained why past CO2 levels are not relevant to today's situation.
Then in post #308 you start talking about where the authors are posting their papers and how having science that can hold up in a legal manner is not good.
No, I said science does not work by legal definitions. There is no sense wasting more time on you if you are going to misconstrue my words like this.
Now in post #312 you are making the statement and connection that the paper buy the four authors as if the work had been reviewed by thousands of other studies.
Wow. That is an incredibly stupid statement. How could studies possibly review anything? They could not. Peers review studies. Studies are not capable of sentient behavior.
Total misdirection and false. Show me any proof of that. Your statement - “… do not negate thousands of peer-reviewed studies."
Proof? This is self-evident. If one team of scientists comes out with a study that makes a claim and a thousand other teams study the same subject and reach different conclusions the one study does not negate those thousand studies. Only an idiot would doubt that.
Then in post #311, I try and get you back on track and ask you the simple question of what you think the high and low numbers of CO2 that should be used are. Tring to get you back on the subject at hand. You totally disregard the subject matter and provide no numbers.
What numbers of high and low CO2 ppm do you think the earth has had? It is not that hard of a question. Why can you not answer the question?
Because it is, as psikey said, an idiotic question.
I'm done with you. Goodbye.
Of these thousands of studies you have researched. What is the maximum CO2 the earth can hold.
Asshole, it's not about how much Earth's atmosphere can possibly hold!
You are wrong. That is the question at hand right now “How much CO2 has the atmosphere held." You are the one being an asshole by not understanding the question or subject matter.
What is the lowest and highest amount of CO2 that can be held and has been held by the earth?
Then the second part of the question is - What do think is the best CO2 level for the earth?
You’re the Asshole by not wanting to answer a simple question without creating a tangent, just a simple straight forward answer on the subject matter, not all this BS you listed, is all that is required. What are you afraid of?
This question is the foundation of the CO2 subject. Something that should be understood and can be answered in two seconds by anyone who cares about the earth's CO2 levels.
NO IT'S NOT.
It's a mad man's belly button gazing.
What kind of idiotic question is that? Why should there be a maximum?
But can people survive a 20% CO2 atmosphere?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
Ship this dude to Venus!
psik
I have to agree with you. I really don’t care what the maximum is. If it is 140,000 or 600 ppm. What is try to be accomplished is a baseline or gauge so we can move off the denier BS and stop going in circles. It is a simple question like – what time is it?
Why should there be a maximum? So we can create a baseline of past history for comparison. The subject matter at hand is that John Holdren, a co-founder of Greenpeace in Canada said that maybe the increase in CO2 levels may not be all bad. There is some good that can come out of the rise in CO2. Now the view of Hitler is more liked than John by posters for that statement. My understanding is that John is a scientist and before we discard John and his views, maybe we should take a look at what is saying.
Lausten brought up the 350 ppm movement. I said I could go with John because I have not seen any movement of the levels going in the down direction. But my numbers would higher and on a sliding scale as we are now in the cooling of the earths Milankovitch cycle.
That’s about it, two answers so far and a lot dancing around.
I didn't know the 20% CO2 number. Wonder what this is in ppm?
The subject matter at hand is that John Holdren, a co-founder of Greenpeace in Canada said that maybe the increase in CO2 levels may not be all bad. There is some good that can come out of the rise in CO2. Now the view of Hitler...
Get a grip.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/about/leadershipstaff/directorDr. John P. Holdren is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Prior to joining the Obama administration Dr. Holdren was Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, as well as professor in Harvard's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Director of the independent, nonprofit Woods Hole Research Center. Previously he was on the faculty of the University of California, Berkeley, where he co-founded in 1973 and co-led until 1996 the interdisciplinary graduate-degree program in energy and resources. During the Clinton administration Dr. Holdren served as a member of PCAST through both terms and in that capacity chaired studies requested by President Clinton on preventing theft of nuclear materials, disposition of surplus weapon plutonium, the prospects of fusion energy, U.S. energy R&D strategy, and international cooperation on energy-technology innovation.
Dr. Holdren holds advanced degrees in aerospace engineering and theoretical plasma physics from MIT and Stanford. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, as well as a foreign member of the Royal Society of London and former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He served as a member of the MacArthur Foundation’s Board of Trustees from 1991 to 2005, as Chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on International Security and Arms Control from 1994 to 2005, and as Co-Chair of the independent, bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy from 2002 to 2009. His awards include a MacArthur Foundation Prize Fellowship, the John Heinz Prize in Public Policy, the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, and the Volvo Environment Prize. In December 1995 he gave the acceptance lecture for the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, an international organization of scientists and public figures in which he held leadership positions from 1982 to 1997.
I didn't know the 20% CO2 number. Wonder what this is in ppm?
I really hope you are kidding about that question. it's
200,000 ppm 500 times what we have now.
There isn't really anything to know about the 20% number. I just came up with something I knew was ridiculous but not impossible for a planet.
With 7,000,000,000 people on the planet if the rise in CO2 benefits 500,000,000 and results in the deaths of 2,000,000,000 is that worth evaluating? I saw a program that said the growing season in Sweden is a month longer than it was 40 years ago. How many people were dying of heat stroke during the summer in France and Pakistan 40 years ago?
I do not care about the climate history before 10,000,000 years ago and don't care a lot about more than 1,000,000 years ago. The last 1,000,000 years is useful for CO2 and Ice Age analysis. The human population just hit 1,000,000,000 only 200 years ago. So more than 1,000,000 years is beyond ancient history.
psik
I didn't know the 20% CO2 number. Wonder what this is in ppm?
I really hope you are kidding about that question. it's
200,000 ppm 500 times what we have now.
There isn't really anything to know about the 20% number. I just came up with something I knew was ridiculous but not impossible for a planet.
With 7,000,000,000 people on the planet if the rise in CO2 benefits 500,000,000 and results in the deaths of 2,000,000,000 is that worth evaluating? I saw a program that said the growing season in Sweden is a month longer than it was 40 years ago. How many people were dying of heat stroke during the summer in France and Pakistan 40 years ago?
I do not care about the climate history before 10,000,000 years ago and don't care a lot about more than 1,000,000 years ago. The last 1,000,000 years is useful for CO2 and Ice Age analysis. The human population just hit 1,000,000,000 only 200 years ago. So more than 1,000,000 years is beyond ancient history.
psik
Very well said...
The subject matter at hand is that John Holdren, a co-founder of Greenpeace in Canada said that maybe the increase in CO2 levels may not be all bad. There is some good that can come out of the rise in CO2. Now the view of Hitler...
Get a grip.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/about/leadershipstaff/directorDr. John P. Holdren is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Prior to joining the Obama administration Dr. Holdren was Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, as well as professor in Harvard's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Director of the independent, nonprofit Woods Hole Research Center. Previously he was on the faculty of the University of California, Berkeley, where he co-founded in 1973 and co-led until 1996 the interdisciplinary graduate-degree program in energy and resources. During the Clinton administration Dr. Holdren served as a member of PCAST through both terms and in that capacity chaired studies requested by President Clinton on preventing theft of nuclear materials, disposition of surplus weapon plutonium, the prospects of fusion energy, U.S. energy R&D strategy, and international cooperation on energy-technology innovation.
Dr. Holdren holds advanced degrees in aerospace engineering and theoretical plasma physics from MIT and Stanford. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, as well as a foreign member of the Royal Society of London and former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He served as a member of the MacArthur Foundation’s Board of Trustees from 1991 to 2005, as Chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on International Security and Arms Control from 1994 to 2005, and as Co-Chair of the independent, bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy from 2002 to 2009. His awards include a MacArthur Foundation Prize Fellowship, the John Heinz Prize in Public Policy, the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, and the Volvo Environment Prize. In December 1995 he gave the acceptance lecture for the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, an international organization of scientists and public figures in which he held leadership positions from 1982 to 1997.
Yea, you are right, I got the two guys mixed up. So much junk and time wasted on denial and blaming the rich for the problems that I got Holdren mixed up with Mr. Patrick Moore. Real sorry about that and any confusion it may have caused. I introduced Mr. Holdren in post 205 because he declared that we are in the cooling cycle right now and if it was not for the man-made carbon we would be cooling instead of heating and going into another Ice Age.
Then the question becomes, if we are cooling, but are in a warmer earth because of the CC. Then the goal may be to lower the carbon and keep it in balance with the cooling to normalize the climate. Then comes the kicker with the claims that the earth cooling cycle has happened in the past with jumps that can take place in decades instead of thousands of years. And that is a big concern. If the jumps are true, we need to fully understand the how and when these jumps happen.
The other issue that I was trying to get onto the table was that Mr. Moore stated that at 180 ppm’s of carbon the plant life dies. And we should look at the benefits for mankind at the higher carbon limits like 450.
Yea, you are right, I got the two guys mixed up. So much junk and time wasted on denial and blaming the rich for the problems that I got Holdren mixed up with Mr. Patrick Moore. Real sorry about that and any confusion it may have caused. I introduced Mr. Holdren in post 205 because he declared that we are in the cooling cycle right now and if it was not for the man-made carbon we would be cooling instead of heating and going into another Ice Age.
Then the question becomes, if we are cooling, but are in a warmer earth because of the CC. Then the goal may be to lower the carbon and keep it in balance with the cooling to normalize the climate. Then comes the kicker with the claims that the earth cooling cycle has happened in the past with jumps that can take place in decades instead of thousands of years. And that is a big concern. If the jumps are true, we need to fully understand the how and when these jumps happen.
The other issue that I was trying to get onto the table was that Mr. Moore stated that at 180 ppm’s of carbon the plant life dies. And we should look at the benefits for mankind at the higher carbon limits like 450.
The problem with what you're posting is that you either don't understand what science even is or are intentionally misrepresenting it. You keep talking about what people are "claiming" often attributing it to the wrong person or completely misrepresenting what professionals in the field are presenting in actual evidence.
How about you spend some time learning the actual evidence, this is a good place to start. http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Then we don't have to keep correcting the claims you keep making with no evidence to back them up.
I didn't know the 20% CO2 number. Wonder what this is in ppm?
I really hope you are kidding about that question. it's
200,000 ppm 500 times what we have now.
There isn't really anything to know about the 20% number. I just came up with something I knew was ridiculous but not impossible for a planet.
With 7,000,000,000 people on the planet if the rise in CO2 benefits 500,000,000 and results in the deaths of 2,000,000,000 is that worth evaluating? I saw a program that said the growing season in Sweden is a month longer than it was 40 years ago. How many people were dying of heat stroke during the summer in France and Pakistan 40 years ago?
I do not care about the climate history before 10,000,000 years ago and don't care a lot about more than 1,000,000 years ago. The last 1,000,000 years is useful for CO2 and Ice Age analysis. The human population just hit 1,000,000,000 only 200 years ago. So more than 1,000,000 years is beyond ancient history.
psik
Great, I can agree with you on the one million years. Also the population problem. This brings up the question, is population moving into the industrial age one of the causes of CC? If so, do you think that we are going to have to deal with the population to deal with CC?
Great, I can agree with you on the one million years. Also the population problem. This brings up the question, is population moving into the industrial age one of the causes of CC? If so, do you think that we are going to have to deal with the population to deal with CC?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
How about you do a little work for yourself...
Great, ... is population moving into the industrial age one of the causes of CC?
Yes!
If so, do you think that we are going to have to deal with the population to deal with CC?
Yes!
The issue which is rarely mentioned by anyone but me is Consumerism plus Planned Obsolescence.
Then we call increasing GDP economic growth without subtracting the Depreciation of all of the junk we throw away. Eliminate that idiocy and population would be less of a problem.
psik