ReinyDays
Gold Member
It's a well known FACT that computers don't run when CO2 is below 300 ppm ... the internet crashes under natural atmospheric conditions .,..
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is that why you've rejected the existence of the dinosaurs and the entire field of paleonotology? Of course we have records.No one has records from 45 million years ago you idiot.
The temperature record shows no correlation with C02 concentration.An examination of the temperature and CO2 record back to 45 million years indicates that CO2 levels above 400 ppm will not allow the continued existence of the Antarctic ice shelves. The loss of those shelves, even without a catastrophic collapse of the WAIS, will facilitate an enormous movement of land-based glacial ice into the seas raising global sea level by tens of feet.
Our Atmospheric CO2 is now past the point that in the Deep Past has Meant the Melting of the Antarctic Ice Sheets
Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) - So as a historian, I am particularly interested in what the past tells us about the present. I've taught courses on climate change in history. But of course my kind of history doesn't go back very far from the point of view of physical scientists. The academic...www.juancole.com
He believes the temperatures they infer from certain mineral concentrations constitute a temperature record.You're the biggest gd liar here. There are NO records from that long ago you imbecile.
You're the biggest gd liar here. There are NO records from that long ago you imbecile.
Are you really this stupid? As BriPat told you, scientists are able to determine temperatures from ratios of certain chemical components laid down in sedimentary rock. Did you never wonder where all those diagrams of temperature you see on this forum, going back hundreds of millons of years, come from? Did you actually think I was claiming someone had a thermometer and was writing the daily temps down in a big book?You're the biggest gd liar here. There are NO records from that long ago you imbecile.
Those diagrams showing the temperatures from millions of years ago don't support AGW theory.Are you really this stupid? As BriPat told you, scientists are able to determine temperatures from ratios of certain chemical components laid down in sedimentary rock. Did you never wonder where all those diagrams of temperature you see on this forum, going back hundreds of millons of years, come from? Did you actually think I was claiming someone had a thermometer and was writing the daily temps down in a big book?
Is that why you've rejected the existence of the dinosaurs and the entire field of paleonotology? Of course we have records.
Now the liar changes his story. First you said records from 45 million years ago.Are you really this stupid? As BriPat told you, scientists are able to determine temperatures from ratios of certain chemical components laid down in sedimentary rock. Did you never wonder where all those diagrams of temperature you see on this forum, going back hundreds of millons of years, come from? Did you actually think I was claiming someone had a thermometer and was writing the daily temps down in a big book?
Are you really this stupid? As BriPat told you, scientists are able to determine temperatures from ratios of certain chemical components laid down in sedimentary rock. Did you never wonder where all those diagrams of temperature you see on this forum, going back hundreds of millons of years, come from? Did you actually think I was claiming someone had a thermometer and was writing the daily temps down in a big book?
Yes, be afraid. Be VERY afraid.Wrong ... liar ... scientists use "blah blah blah" as PROXIES of temperature ... they never say "determined" ... that claim is reserved for scientifically accurate direct measure ... should I be afraid to go near anything you've engineered? ...
Yes, be afraid. Be VERY afraid.
Do you not realize when you try to make a huge stink out of a nothingburger like that, that it only makes you look desperately unable to produce a real argument to the point under discussion. I will give you that "determine" was the wrong word to use. "Estimate" would have been more accurate. But that certainly didn't justify "liar" and I personally think the overreaction makes you look like quite the asshole.
Your call. But I guess you've probably built up some tolerance considering how many people must hold opinions of you similar to the one I'm beginning to develop.LIAR is based on the volume of misinformation you post here ... no quarter stupid motherfucker ...
And now I'm saying from hundreds of millions of years. Are we confused?Now the liar changes his story. First you said records from 45 million years ago.
Neither I nor the article linked in the OP said they did. What the study shows is that the paleoclimatic RECORD shows that for the last 45 million years, any time CO2 got above 400 ppm, the Antarctic ice shelf disappeared. This would be a comment about the effects of increasing GHGs and the warming they cause, not an attempt to support the greenhouse effect (cause it doesn't need support) or that we are warming (cause that's undeniable) or that this warming will hurt us (also undeniable, though many fools will try).Those diagrams showing the temperatures from millions of years ago don't support AGW theory.
Your call.
C02 follows temperature. Temperature doesn't cause changes in C02. For 4 billion years C02 hasn't been tracking temperature.Neither I nor the article linked in the OP said they did. What the study shows is that the paleoclimatic RECORD shows that for the last 45 million years, any time CO2 got above 400 ppm, the Antarctic ice shelf disappeared. This would be a comment about the effects of increasing GHGs and the warming they cause, not an attempt to support the greenhouse effect (cause it doesn't need support) or that we are warming (cause that's undeniable) or that this warming will hurt us (also undeniable, though many fools will try).