Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

A few facts for the day

CO2 levels in earth's atmosphere used to be around 6000 PPM. (parts per million). The earth did not warm up. In fact it cooled off.
The CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere is now ensconced in the limestone, chalk and coal we find all over the world as well as in the coral reefs we see.
CO2 is plant food and plants thrive in an atmosphere of 1000 PPM.
CO2 is one of the foundations of life and should the CO2 levels drop below 180 PPM life on earth will end.
We are presently in an ice age.
The overall trend line for global temperature is downward with the exception of cycles within cycles within cycles.
The output of the sun and the gravitational effect of Jupiter have more to do with the earths overall temperature than does CO2 since it can be shown that the temperature in the past has changed drastically with no change of CO2 and we see drastic changes of CO2 with no change in temperature.
The earth's troposphere has shown a cooling trend since 2012 which also shows up in satellite measurements.
Links? Source?? OF COURSE NOT!!!

[quote]but I've yet to hear a rational explanation of how miniscule increases in an atmospheric trace gas such as CO2, causes the earth to warm.[/quote] It's because CO2 & methane are transparent to visible light but more opaque to infrared. The solar energy comes pouring in via the visible spectrum, but the heat can't leave so easily via the infrared spectrum due to that opacity. Kids' version:
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/explainer-co2-and-other-greenhouse-gases
idealized quantitative model: https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/coriolis-force/a-simple-mathematical-model-of-the-greenhouse-effect.html

[quote] In order to actually prove human carbon emissions influence climate, all variables would have to remain constant[/quote] Nope. With multiple data points we can solve for multiple variables simultaneously. Detailed climate models account for all the variables you list and more. They are verified and calibrated based on 700,000 years of prior climate data.
http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/climate.html

[quote] Global warming models are based on small amounts of data. The earth is 4.6 billion years old, and we are expected to believe they can draw conclusions based on a hockey stick graph with 50 years of data?[/quote]
Nope, not 50 years, 700,000 years, covering about 7 ice ages. The climate data comes from bubbles in glacial ice, and is corroborated by data from sea floor sediments.
https://icecores.org/about-ice-cores

Here's [i]where[/i] the various data sets were collected:

The most salient thing about the 700,000 years of climate data is the rate of change during those previous 7 ice ages compared to the current rate of change this century.

[quote] Where does the money for climate research come from?[/quote]
Fair question. Equally fair: where does the money for climate denial come from? The US oil industry makes about $110 [i]billion[/i] per year; coal another $20 billion. Big Oil spends $3.6 billion per year on advertising; a sum equal to about 8X the whole NSF climate budget. You're not naive enough to believe [i]none[/i] of that money goes to propaganda, are you?

[quote] At best scientist can make correlations.[/quote] So you're saying that when science predicts an eclipse ten years in advance accurate to the second, that's only a [i]correlation?[/i] C'mon dude, science makes [i]predictions[/i] all the time.
Poor @hippyjoe1955 can't support a single one of his claims. SAD!
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@ElwoodBlues Kindergarten level science such as yours is not worth the effort. You don't read.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@hippyjoe1955 Homeboi's miles ahead of you, you didn't provide any source at all.
BlueVeins · 22-25


Note the differing & non-linear scales. Couldn't find a graph that goes farther back (and levels were higher during the Cambrian period), but the evidence is pretty clear. Even if 2,000 was bad & 6,000 was a-okay somehow, it'd still be a bad idea to let it get to that point because CO2 poisoning starts setting in at ~5,000 ppm. Granted, it'd be very mild poisoning but you definitely still don't want that 24/7.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@BlueVeins considering we are less than 400......
TexChik · F
Hey ! Libs don’t want facts , just pay them ! 😂
MrBrownstone · 46-50, M
@TexChik Day after Elon Musk said he’s no longer voting Democratic,he has a sexual harrrasment allegation. Funny how that worked out.
Barefooter25 · 46-50, M
The liberal interpretation to your post is that our SUVs and capitalism itself is destroying Jupiter and the other surrounding planets!!! 😮😧
Yetti · 46-50, M
There, there now! 😏🤗 If it makes you feel better, you and all the true believers can volunteer to pay each and everyone in the skeptical camp's carbon taxes.
SW-User
*Parrot voice - But 97 percent of scientists say..........

Shut up! The majority is always wrong, historically proven.
Changeisgonnacome · 61-69, F
I know. It's a wonderful planet, we needed to kill it, of course, or communists were going to take over with their long hair on men and a three day work week.
On YouTube the Jacobin channel features Jen Pan-. She's a genius and the genius type she interviewed said I don't know about the carbon cycle because I'm working poor.
It's okay-. I'd rather we don't have to share a planet, after all.
Yetti · 46-50, M
Thanks for posting this

 
Post Comment