The huge benefits of MORE CO2!!!

[mamooth]

About polarbearscience

"I am a different kind of polar bear expert than those that study bears in the field but having a different background means I know things they do not and this makes my contribution valuable and valid."
--- Dr. Susan Crocker

I also read stuff on the internet, so I must be an expert. Apparently, reading stuff on the internet is all it takes to be a world renowned polar bear expert in Denierstan.

Meanwhile, the 2013 summary. Out of the 19 defined distinct populations, 4 are declining, 5 are stable, 1 is increasing, and 9 are data deficient.

Summary of polar bear population status per 2013

And they can add this 2014 study to the summary

Beaufort Sea polar bear population took big hit in early 2000s study says Alaska Dispatch
---
The polar bear population in the southern Beaufort Sea -- considered one of the populations most vulnerable to reductions in Arctic sea ice -- dropped by roughly 40 percent between 2001 and 2010, according to a new study by U.S. and Canadian scientists.
---

 

[westwall]

Liberals, Democrats, the Green Energy Nuts, Environmentalists, are all idiots (plus a whole bunch of Republicans).

People believe they can control a gas the occurs naturally? Are our leaders that stupid, no not at all, its the people who follow our leaders who are idiots.

The Government has increased the consumption of Oil World wide. To build the World's largest industry, Green Renewable Energy. Over a Trillion Dollars invested in the last 5 years. Sure the price will come down, but the fact remains that much of that Trillion dollars went to making stuff which all started with Oil. Every step of the process, the manufacture of Green Renewable Energy required the massive increase in the consumption of Oil.

One must wonder, with Germany and Spain reversing the use of Solar and Wind, with the money running out in the USA for Solar and Wind, if the price of Oil was not driven by the manufacture of Solar and Wind components, after all each new Solar farm is bigger than the last, covering square miles. Each Wind farm covers miles of land. That is a lot of material to manufactured.

Solar and Wind is pure Socialism, slavery, the government forcing people to buy expensive power plants. Expensive meaning they do not work, literally.

Yes, the global warming supporters are long on cute comics. Just very short on real data. They seem to think that computer models are data. They are sadly mistaken.

As far as your cute little polar bear comic go's here are the real facts on polar bears. But you know, that's the thing about meme's....when they fall, they fall real fast.


Polar bear habitat – more Arctic sea ice in Canada this week than in early 1970s
Posted on December 26, 2014 | Comments Off
This week, Arctic sea ice in Canada, where 2/3 of the world’s polar bears live, had more sea ice than was present in the early 1970s. Globally, the ice is spitting-distance close to the 1981-2010 average calculated by the NSIDC for this date – which means lots of winter/spring hunting habitat for polar bears.

Polar bear habitat more Arctic sea ice in Canada this week than in early 1970s polarbearscience

It might serve you well to look at where you're getting your information. polarbearscience.com/ is run by Dr. Susan J. Crockford who has worked for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian conservative think tank that has argued for years that global warming is not occurring. She was a signatory to a document that “rebuked” President Obama on climate change for accepting human induced climate change. In 2012, she worked on the Heartland Institute NIPCC project to descredit the IPCC.
She is also listed in the U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists
Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Polarbearscience.com is about as impartial as the Heartland Institute.

And yet the information they publish is factual. Here's the deal. Attack the data, not the source. I can care less who the info comes from so long as it is accurate. I suggest you do likewise. Your sources are every bit as biased and yet somehow that is OK? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[westwall]

About polarbearscience

"I am a different kind of polar bear expert than those that study bears in the field but having a different background means I know things they do not and this makes my contribution valuable and valid."
--- Dr. Susan Crocker

I also read stuff on the internet, so I must be an expert. Apparently, reading stuff on the internet is all it takes to be a world renowned polar bear expert in Denierstan.

Meanwhile, the 2013 summary. Out of the 19 defined distinct populations, 4 are declining, 5 are stable, 1 is increasing, and 9 are data deficient.

Summary of polar bear population status per 2013

And they can add this 2014 study to the summary

Beaufort Sea polar bear population took big hit in early 2000s study says Alaska Dispatch
---
The polar bear population in the southern Beaufort Sea -- considered one of the populations most vulnerable to reductions in Arctic sea ice -- dropped by roughly 40 percent between 2001 and 2010, according to a new study by U.S. and Canadian scientists.
---

Here's a little more even handed discussion of the subject. They still try and make it sound alarming, but they have to try real hard to do it. I love how the CBD spokeswoman just categorically denies factual data. But, what ya gonna do. Deniers gonna deny.

"The tourists come, of course, because polar bears are a dying breed, and they want to check that furry face off their life lists before it’s too late. The environmental movement has never had a higher-profile spokesmodel than Ursus maritimus. Every discussion about global warming has to include a mention of polar bears; every article about the human disregard for nature has to feature a photograph of a sad-looking bear on a tiny speck of ice.
Granted, the population numbers have been startling. Research from 1984 to 2004 showed that the western Hudson Bay population, which includes the Churchill bears, had declined from 1,194 to 935. The trendlines from that study suggested that by 2011, the population would fall to as low as 676.
Fast-forward to today and a new study, which reveals that the current polar bear population of western Hudson Bay is 1,013 animals.
Wait … what? More bears than there were 10 years ago? Nearly double the prediction? “Polar bears are one of the biggest conservation success stories in the world,” says Drikus Gissing, wildlife director for the Government of Nunavut. “There are more bears here now than there were in the recent past.”
“That’s false,” says Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, the international advocacy organization that, in 2008, successfully pushed to have polar bears listed as “threatened” in the United States. “Polar bear populations are in decline. That means individual bears are starving and drowning.”

"Consider Mitch Taylor’s story. He spent more than two decades as a polar bear researcher and manager for the Nunavut government and has published around 50 peer-reviewed papers. That should garner widespread respect. But Taylor has been highly vocal about his belief that polar bears are mostly doing fine, that cub mortality varies from year to year and that the much ballyhooed predictions of extinction by 2050 are “a joke.” He also alleges that a lot of the “exaggerated decline” is just a way to keep certain scientists well funded and to transfer control of the polar bear issue from territorial to federal hands. In response, Taylor’s critics disinvited him from meetings of polar bear specialists that he’d been attending since 1978. They also like to point out that he’s a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration, which questions the very existence of climate change. But amidst all the heated charges and countercharges, it’s hard to argue the fact that few people know polar bears the way Taylor does. And while it might be inconvenient for current political posturing, there’s no denying that certain subpopulations of polar bears are managing to survive, even thrive".

The truth about polar bears page 3 - Canadian Geographic

 

[skookerasbil]

Board member Polar Bear has come on here many times and decimated the AGW k00k lies about the polar bear population with photo's and research from real scientists. The guy lives works in northern Canada.....pops op his own photos of massive polar bear populations. The polar bear scare is one of the biggest of all the AGW phony stories......there is zero truth to it!!!

Global population of polar bears has increased by 2 650-5 700 since 2001 polarbearscience

And lets remember now.........Mamooth is the biggest liar on the entire USMB with the possible exception of JoeB and Nuddly........

 

[jon_berzerk]

Oh, wonderful; back to the Carboniferous period, a hot humid world of rich plant life and no human life.

But the mammals of that period flourished.. grew to be huge and multiplied... Then came an Ice age and a comet. An ELE which none could predict...

And funny how the CO2 levels were near 7,000ppm but the earth never burned up....

Ah yes, the mammals of the Carboniferous. Gosh dang, ol' Billy Boob, do tell us more.

He's only off by around 70 million years. Which, in the history of the planet is a small miss. And even with that, he's closer than you are in anything you state.

i like the warmists guys that say that more co2 will kill off plant life

--LOL

You mean like MaMOOOOOOOOOOOOT and Old Crock?

--LOL

yeah

--LOL

 

[Flopper]

Liberals, Democrats, the Green Energy Nuts, Environmentalists, are all idiots (plus a whole bunch of Republicans).

People believe they can control a gas the occurs naturally? Are our leaders that stupid, no not at all, its the people who follow our leaders who are idiots.

The Government has increased the consumption of Oil World wide. To build the World's largest industry, Green Renewable Energy. Over a Trillion Dollars invested in the last 5 years. Sure the price will come down, but the fact remains that much of that Trillion dollars went to making stuff which all started with Oil. Every step of the process, the manufacture of Green Renewable Energy required the massive increase in the consumption of Oil.

One must wonder, with Germany and Spain reversing the use of Solar and Wind, with the money running out in the USA for Solar and Wind, if the price of Oil was not driven by the manufacture of Solar and Wind components, after all each new Solar farm is bigger than the last, covering square miles. Each Wind farm covers miles of land. That is a lot of material to manufactured.

Solar and Wind is pure Socialism, slavery, the government forcing people to buy expensive power plants. Expensive meaning they do not work, literally.

Yes, the global warming supporters are long on cute comics. Just very short on real data. They seem to think that computer models are data. They are sadly mistaken.

As far as your cute little polar bear comic go's here are the real facts on polar bears. But you know, that's the thing about meme's....when they fall, they fall real fast.


Polar bear habitat – more Arctic sea ice in Canada this week than in early 1970s
Posted on December 26, 2014 | Comments Off
This week, Arctic sea ice in Canada, where 2/3 of the world’s polar bears live, had more sea ice than was present in the early 1970s. Globally, the ice is spitting-distance close to the 1981-2010 average calculated by the NSIDC for this date – which means lots of winter/spring hunting habitat for polar bears.

Polar bear habitat more Arctic sea ice in Canada this week than in early 1970s polarbearscience

It might serve you well to look at where you're getting your information. polarbearscience.com/ is run by Dr. Susan J. Crockford who has worked for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian conservative think tank that has argued for years that global warming is not occurring. She was a signatory to a document that “rebuked” President Obama on climate change for accepting human induced climate change. In 2012, she worked on the Heartland Institute NIPCC project to descredit the IPCC.
She is also listed in the U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists
Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Polarbearscience.com is about as impartial as the Heartland Institute.

And yet the information they publish is factual. Here's the deal. Attack the data, not the source. I can care less who the info comes from so long as it is accurate. I suggest you do likewise. Your sources are every bit as biased and yet somehow that is OK? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I have no reason to doubt the data. However, is coverage data the relevant data or is the ice thickness more relevant? There is so much data, you can always find data to support a conclusion if you look harder enough.

 

[Old Rocks]

There has never been a single successful experiment showing how an additional wisp of CO2 can raise temperature.

Not one.

Not ever.

Yep..........MOST scientists, Masters and Phd level, call BS on climate science based upon this fact.......scientific methods are of no concern to the climate scientist. Of course, to the AGW religion, these tens of thousands of scientists are "fake" scientists!!!

Very funny. Since I see scientists, Masters and Phd level every time I go to class, and to the man, they consider AGW to be real, and a problem, I would have to ask you what kind of evidence do you have to back up a statement like that?

Sure you do.

Without salt in your diet, you will die. So, since salt is necessary, it must be very good, just try downing a quart of it.

--LOL nice try

you do realize that greenhouse growers raise the co2 level to boost their efforts

Without salt in your diet, you will die. So, since salt is neccessary, it must be very good, just try downing a quart of it.

Without salt in your diet, you will die. So, since salt is necessary, it must be very good, just try downing a quart of it.

--LOL nice try

you do realize that many greenhouse growers raise the co2 level to boost their efforts

Greenhouse co2 generators are run at 1000pm to increase growth. At 1000pm, the Greenland ice sheet would disappear and the acidity of the oceans would be devastating to marine life.

Ummm, no, and no. There have been times when the atmospheric CO2 levels were 20 times what they are today. Life blossomed.

Assuming you're talking about average co2 levels and not spikes, you would have to go back a long time to find average levels 20 times of what they are today. For the first time in recorded history, the average level of CO2 has topped 400 ppm for an entire month. In the Ordovician Period, long before the first blade of grass grew or any living creature walked the earth, the CO2 level was at 3000 ppm, about 8 to 10 times today's level.

It doesn't matter. Whenever the CO2 levels have been high, the planet has bloomed. Here's a fact they never tell you, if you were to magically lower atmospheric CO2 levels to 199 ppm....nothing would grow and life as we know it would cease. That's how narrow a margin we have to grow things that make life on this planet possible.

Lordy, lordy. Here is our claimed Phd in Geology claiming that at 199 ppm of CO2, life would die because all the plants would die. Yet the level of CO2 during the times of contintental ice was 180 ppm.

Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere

Vostok Ice Core record of variations in air temperature (relative to the current average temperature of �55.5°C at Vostok) and CO2 concentrations from gas bubbles in the ice. (Data from Petit et al., 1999.

And when the CO2 was at the 180 ppm, there were a great many very large mammals in North America. Large mammals that ate a lot of plants. Takes a bunch to keep mamoths and mastadons going.

Walleyes, meet Billy Boob. Billy Boob, meet Walleyes. Peer level.

 

[jon_berzerk]

There has never been a single successful experiment showing how an additional wisp of CO2 can raise temperature.

Not one.

Not ever.

Yep..........MOST scientists, Masters and Phd level, call BS on climate science based upon this fact.......scientific methods are of no concern to the climate scientist. Of course, to the AGW religion, these tens of thousands of scientists are "fake" scientists!!!

Very funny. Since I see scientists, Masters and Phd level every time I go to class, and to the man, they consider AGW to be real, and a problem, I would have to ask you what kind of evidence do you have to back up a statement like that?

Sure you do.

--LOL nice try

you do realize that greenhouse growers raise the co2 level to boost their efforts
Without salt in your diet, you will die. So, since salt is necessary, it must be very good, just try downing a quart of it.

--LOL nice try

you do realize that many greenhouse growers raise the co2 level to boost their efforts

Greenhouse co2 generators are run at 1000pm to increase growth. At 1000pm, the Greenland ice sheet would disappear and the acidity of the oceans would be devastating to marine life.

Ummm, no, and no. There have been times when the atmospheric CO2 levels were 20 times what they are today. Life blossomed.

Assuming you're talking about average co2 levels and not spikes, you would have to go back a long time to find average levels 20 times of what they are today. For the first time in recorded history, the average level of CO2 has topped 400 ppm for an entire month. In the Ordovician Period, long before the first blade of grass grew or any living creature walked the earth, the CO2 level was at 3000 ppm, about 8 to 10 times today's level.

It doesn't matter. Whenever the CO2 levels have been high, the planet has bloomed. Here's a fact they never tell you, if you were to magically lower atmospheric CO2 levels to 199 ppm....nothing would grow and life as we know it would cease. That's how narrow a margin we have to grow things that make life on this planet possible.

Lordy, lordy. Here is our claimed Phd in Geology claiming that at 199 ppm of CO2, life would die because all the plants would die. Yet the level of CO2 during the times of contintental ice was 180 ppm.

Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere

Vostok Ice Core record of variations in air temperature (relative to the current average temperature of �55.5°C at Vostok) and CO2 concentrations from gas bubbles in the ice. (Data from Petit et al., 1999.

And when the CO2 was at the 180 ppm, there were a great many very large mammals in North America. Large mammals that ate a lot of plants. Takes a bunch to keep mamoths and mastadons going.

Walleyes, meet Billy Boob. Billy Boob, meet Walleyes. Peer level.

respiration rates of different plants have different respiration rates

so it is pretty hard to generalize

however it would be interesting to know what sunlight was available during

those low co2 levels

since co2 is only required when sunlight is present

 

[westwall]

Liberals, Democrats, the Green Energy Nuts, Environmentalists, are all idiots (plus a whole bunch of Republicans).

People believe they can control a gas the occurs naturally? Are our leaders that stupid, no not at all, its the people who follow our leaders who are idiots.

The Government has increased the consumption of Oil World wide. To build the World's largest industry, Green Renewable Energy. Over a Trillion Dollars invested in the last 5 years. Sure the price will come down, but the fact remains that much of that Trillion dollars went to making stuff which all started with Oil. Every step of the process, the manufacture of Green Renewable Energy required the massive increase in the consumption of Oil.

One must wonder, with Germany and Spain reversing the use of Solar and Wind, with the money running out in the USA for Solar and Wind, if the price of Oil was not driven by the manufacture of Solar and Wind components, after all each new Solar farm is bigger than the last, covering square miles. Each Wind farm covers miles of land. That is a lot of material to manufactured.

Solar and Wind is pure Socialism, slavery, the government forcing people to buy expensive power plants. Expensive meaning they do not work, literally.

Yes, the global warming supporters are long on cute comics. Just very short on real data. They seem to think that computer models are data. They are sadly mistaken.

As far as your cute little polar bear comic go's here are the real facts on polar bears. But you know, that's the thing about meme's....when they fall, they fall real fast.


Polar bear habitat – more Arctic sea ice in Canada this week than in early 1970s
Posted on December 26, 2014 | Comments Off
This week, Arctic sea ice in Canada, where 2/3 of the world’s polar bears live, had more sea ice than was present in the early 1970s. Globally, the ice is spitting-distance close to the 1981-2010 average calculated by the NSIDC for this date – which means lots of winter/spring hunting habitat for polar bears.

Polar bear habitat more Arctic sea ice in Canada this week than in early 1970s polarbearscience

It might serve you well to look at where you're getting your information. polarbearscience.com/ is run by Dr. Susan J. Crockford who has worked for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian conservative think tank that has argued for years that global warming is not occurring. She was a signatory to a document that “rebuked” President Obama on climate change for accepting human induced climate change. In 2012, she worked on the Heartland Institute NIPCC project to descredit the IPCC.
She is also listed in the U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists
Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Polarbearscience.com is about as impartial as the Heartland Institute.

And yet the information they publish is factual. Here's the deal. Attack the data, not the source. I can care less who the info comes from so long as it is accurate. I suggest you do likewise. Your sources are every bit as biased and yet somehow that is OK? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I have no reason to doubt the data. However, is coverage data the relevant data or is the ice thickness more relevant? There is so much data, you can always find data to support a conclusion if you look harder enough.

As both are increasing I think you are covered both ways!

 

[westwall]

There has never been a single successful experiment showing how an additional wisp of CO2 can raise temperature.

Not one.

Not ever.

Yep..........MOST scientists, Masters and Phd level, call BS on climate science based upon this fact.......scientific methods are of no concern to the climate scientist. Of course, to the AGW religion, these tens of thousands of scientists are "fake" scientists!!!

Very funny. Since I see scientists, Masters and Phd level every time I go to class, and to the man, they consider AGW to be real, and a problem, I would have to ask you what kind of evidence do you have to back up a statement like that?

Sure you do.

--LOL nice try

you do realize that greenhouse growers raise the co2 level to boost their efforts
Without salt in your diet, you will die. So, since salt is necessary, it must be very good, just try downing a quart of it.

--LOL nice try

you do realize that many greenhouse growers raise the co2 level to boost their efforts

Greenhouse co2 generators are run at 1000pm to increase growth. At 1000pm, the Greenland ice sheet would disappear and the acidity of the oceans would be devastating to marine life.

Ummm, no, and no. There have been times when the atmospheric CO2 levels were 20 times what they are today. Life blossomed.

Assuming you're talking about average co2 levels and not spikes, you would have to go back a long time to find average levels 20 times of what they are today. For the first time in recorded history, the average level of CO2 has topped 400 ppm for an entire month. In the Ordovician Period, long before the first blade of grass grew or any living creature walked the earth, the CO2 level was at 3000 ppm, about 8 to 10 times today's level.

It doesn't matter. Whenever the CO2 levels have been high, the planet has bloomed. Here's a fact they never tell you, if you were to magically lower atmospheric CO2 levels to 199 ppm....nothing would grow and life as we know it would cease. That's how narrow a margin we have to grow things that make life on this planet possible.

Lordy, lordy. Here is our claimed Phd in Geology claiming that at 199 ppm of CO2, life would die because all the plants would die. Yet the level of CO2 during the times of contintental ice was 180 ppm.

Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere

Vostok Ice Core record of variations in air temperature (relative to the current average temperature of �55.5°C at Vostok) and CO2 concentrations from gas bubbles in the ice. (Data from Petit et al., 1999.

And when the CO2 was at the 180 ppm, there were a great many very large mammals in North America. Large mammals that ate a lot of plants. Takes a bunch to keep mamoths and mastadons going.

Walleyes, meet Billy Boob. Billy Boob, meet Walleyes. Peer level.

CO2 is the GREEEN line. Numbskull.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, the global warming supporters are long on cute comics. Just very short on real data. They seem to think that computer models are data. They are sadly mistaken.

As far as your cute little polar bear comic go's here are the real facts on polar bears. But you know, that's the thing about meme's....when they fall, they fall real fast.


Polar bear habitat – more Arctic sea ice in Canada this week than in early 1970s
Posted on December 26, 2014 | Comments Off
This week, Arctic sea ice in Canada, where 2/3 of the world’s polar bears live, had more sea ice than was present in the early 1970s. Globally, the ice is spitting-distance close to the 1981-2010 average calculated by the NSIDC for this date – which means lots of winter/spring hunting habitat for polar bears.

Polar bear habitat more Arctic sea ice in Canada this week than in early 1970s polarbearscience

It might serve you well to look at where you're getting your information. polarbearscience.com/ is run by Dr. Susan J. Crockford who has worked for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian conservative think tank that has argued for years that global warming is not occurring. She was a signatory to a document that “rebuked” President Obama on climate change for accepting human induced climate change. In 2012, she worked on the Heartland Institute NIPCC project to descredit the IPCC.
She is also listed in the U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists
Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Polarbearscience.com is about as impartial as the Heartland Institute.

And yet the information they publish is factual. Here's the deal. Attack the data, not the source. I can care less who the info comes from so long as it is accurate. I suggest you do likewise. Your sources are every bit as biased and yet somehow that is OK? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I have no reason to doubt the data. However, is coverage data the relevant data or is the ice thickness more relevant? There is so much data, you can always find data to support a conclusion if you look harder enough.

As both are increasing I think you are covered both ways!

A coverage map is a two-dimensional measurement; extent does not tell us how thick the ice is. The volume of sea ice has been decreasing dramatically since the 1970s.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, the global warming supporters are long on cute comics. Just very short on real data. They seem to think that computer models are data. They are sadly mistaken.

As far as your cute little polar bear comic go's here are the real facts on polar bears. But you know, that's the thing about meme's....when they fall, they fall real fast.


Polar bear habitat – more Arctic sea ice in Canada this week than in early 1970s
Posted on December 26, 2014 | Comments Off
This week, Arctic sea ice in Canada, where 2/3 of the world’s polar bears live, had more sea ice than was present in the early 1970s. Globally, the ice is spitting-distance close to the 1981-2010 average calculated by the NSIDC for this date – which means lots of winter/spring hunting habitat for polar bears.

Polar bear habitat more Arctic sea ice in Canada this week than in early 1970s polarbearscience

It might serve you well to look at where you're getting your information. polarbearscience.com/ is run by Dr. Susan J. Crockford who has worked for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian conservative think tank that has argued for years that global warming is not occurring. She was a signatory to a document that “rebuked” President Obama on climate change for accepting human induced climate change. In 2012, she worked on the Heartland Institute NIPCC project to descredit the IPCC.
She is also listed in the U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists
Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Polarbearscience.com is about as impartial as the Heartland Institute.

And yet the information they publish is factual. Here's the deal. Attack the data, not the source. I can care less who the info comes from so long as it is accurate. I suggest you do likewise. Your sources are every bit as biased and yet somehow that is OK? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I have no reason to doubt the data. However, is coverage data the relevant data or is the ice thickness more relevant? There is so much data, you can always find data to support a conclusion if you look harder enough.

As both are increasing I think you are covered both ways!

A coverage map is a two-dimensional measurement; extent does not tell us how thick the ice is. The volume of sea ice has been decreasing dramatically since the 1970s.

Polar Science Center PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

 

[skookerasbil]

Lets not forget.......just 14 years ago, every AGW k00k was telling us that by 2012, there would be NO ice. These people are full of shit.

 

[skookerasbil]

The Green Agenda

 

[jon_berzerk]

Lets not forget.......just 14 years ago, every AGW k00k was telling us that by 2012, there would be NO ice. These people are full of shit.

they would certainly like folks to forget that

as well as all the other false predictions made

--LOL

 

[Billy_Bob]

There has never been a single successful experiment showing how an additional wisp of CO2 can raise temperature.

Not one.

Not ever.

Yep..........MOST scientists, Masters and Phd level, call BS on climate science based upon this fact.......scientific methods are of no concern to the climate scientist. Of course, to the AGW religion, these tens of thousands of scientists are "fake" scientists!!!

Very funny. Since I see scientists, Masters and Phd level every time I go to class, and to the man, they consider AGW to be real, and a problem, I would have to ask you what kind of evidence do you have to back up a statement like that?

Sure you do.

--LOL nice try

you do realize that greenhouse growers raise the co2 level to boost their efforts
Without salt in your diet, you will die. So, since salt is necessary, it must be very good, just try downing a quart of it.

--LOL nice try

you do realize that many greenhouse growers raise the co2 level to boost their efforts

Greenhouse co2 generators are run at 1000pm to increase growth. At 1000pm, the Greenland ice sheet would disappear and the acidity of the oceans would be devastating to marine life.

Ummm, no, and no. There have been times when the atmospheric CO2 levels were 20 times what they are today. Life blossomed.

Assuming you're talking about average co2 levels and not spikes, you would have to go back a long time to find average levels 20 times of what they are today. For the first time in recorded history, the average level of CO2 has topped 400 ppm for an entire month. In the Ordovician Period, long before the first blade of grass grew or any living creature walked the earth, the CO2 level was at 3000 ppm, about 8 to 10 times today's level.

It doesn't matter. Whenever the CO2 levels have been high, the planet has bloomed. Here's a fact they never tell you, if you were to magically lower atmospheric CO2 levels to 199 ppm....nothing would grow and life as we know it would cease. That's how narrow a margin we have to grow things that make life on this planet possible.

Lordy, lordy. Here is our claimed Phd in Geology claiming that at 199 ppm of CO2, life would die because all the plants would die. Yet the level of CO2 during the times of contintental ice was 180 ppm.

Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere

Vostok Ice Core record of variations in air temperature (relative to the current average temperature of �55.5°C at Vostok) and CO2 concentrations from gas bubbles in the ice. (Data from Petit et al., 1999.

And when the CO2 was at the 180 ppm, there were a great many very large mammals in North America. Large mammals that ate a lot of plants. Takes a bunch to keep mamoths and mastadons going.

Walleyes, meet Billy Boob. Billy Boob, meet Walleyes. Peer level.

Poor little moron.. Cant even read the graph right let alone the outright assertion without facts...

 

[Old Rocks]

Vostok Ice Core record of variations in air temperature (relative to the current average temperature of �55.5°C at Vostok) and CO2 concentrations from gas bubbles in the ice. (Data from Petit et al., 1999.)

Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere

Yes, Walleyes, CO2 is the green line. And the CO2 level is on the right. And if you draw a line across at the 200 ppm level, you will see that the green lines drops down to about 180 ppm several times. Old man, you are surely getting senile to have to have that pointed out to you.

 

[Old Rocks]

As stated before, you and Walleyes are on a peer level.

 

[elektra]

Vostok Ice Core record of variations in air temperature (relative to the current average temperature of �55.5°C at Vostok) and CO2 concentrations from gas bubbles in the ice. (Data from Petit et al., 1999.)

Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere

Yes, Walleyes, CO2 is the green line. And the CO2 level is on the right. And if you draw a line across at the 200 ppm level, you will see that the green lines drops down to about 180 ppm several times. Old man, you are surely getting senile to have to have that pointed out to you.

Wow, Old Crock gives the best links, if we bother to read them, which Old Crock obviously does not.

According to whatever researcher/professor wrote this article or study, I say its an article, but according to the author some scientist go beyond what the research proves to make their claims.

CO2 rose, thus that it the proof, yet way back then what drove the rise in CO2 and was that not what also drove a rise in temperature? But for the Scientists who go further than the facts, they have an agenda, which is political, financial, or simply they are "full of themselves", for these Scientists they will not allow the lack of understanding, the lack of facts, the lack of answers to critical questions bother themselves, they can simply dictate that they are to be, "believed", to be "followed".

Thanks for the article Old Crock, its nice to see that the Global Warming nuts went beyond the facts in the studies.

Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere

Some scientists go even further. They say that carbon dioxide rose first, before the warming, and that this is proof that carbon dioxide drives the warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Milankovic Cycles.