Ice Core Data from the last 1/2 Million years with respect to CO2 levels etc. Graph!

[Analog]

. javascript:void(0)

 

[postmortemIA]

I don't get it. We are going to run out of coal and oil for sure sometime in this or next century. I'd be more worried what are we going to use to warm us up then. Brrrr.

 

[arcenite]

That page is way too convoluted for my Gen Y brain. Cliffs?

 

[UberNeuman]

Ice Core Data, the hip hop rapper of ST:TNG.

 

[postmortemIA]

it is probably saying that levels of CO2 don't have dominant rule of what temperature (and climate) we'll have.

 

[Aluvus]

it is probably saying that levels of CO2 don't have dominant rule of what temperature (and climate) we'll have.

The OP's graph shows a very strong correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.

I can't follow the OP's link because Opera thinks something is wrong with it.

 

[Eli]

Ice Core Data, the hip hop rapper of ST:TNG.

omg.....


bwhahahahahahahahaha

That was awesome.

 

[techs]

That page is way too convoluted for my Gen Y brain. Cliffs?

Cliffs:
The idea of global warming has mobilized an enormous amount of the most powerful and richest corporations on earth.
The tobacco companies could convince a large portion of America that smoking wasn't dangerous for 50 years with a tiny fraction of the resources that those who stand to lose billions if global warming becomes accepted by the average person.
There are a huge number of websites of very dubious honesty promoting anti-global warming "theories"
OP has been sold a crock of shit and is happily eating it.

 

[Greenman]

Cliffs 2.0:

It appears from the data presented that there isn't a correlation between co2 and temperature over the long term.

I don't vouch for the voracity or presentation of the data, but that's what it says.

 

[iamwiz82]

I don't get it. We are going to run out of coal and oil for sure sometime in this or next century. I'd be more worried what are we going to use to warm us up then. Brrrr.

Peak oil is 2008, man. Get with the program.

 

[Exterous]

Ice Core Data, the hip hop rapper of ST:TNG.

Took me a second but I chuckled

 

[FelixDeCat]

.

 

[FoBoT]

if CO2 is a pollutant, then so is O2 and N2 and argon
too much argon will kill me

 

[BudAshes]

if CO2 is a pollutant, then so is O2 and N2 and argon
too much argon will kill me

I heard a lady talking to her husband in a tire shop informing him from a poster on the wall that they fill the tires with Nitrogen here, and then explaining to him how I bet they don't do that at the gas station. Like the tire shop was somehow superior because they put this exotic nitrogen in your tire even though the air is 70 fucking percent nitrogen anyway. I understand that it might make a tiny difference in how long your tires stay inflated, but nothing you will really notice. People are just clueless on the basic make up of the planet, which makes convincing them of reality difficult.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

it is probably saying that levels of CO2 don't have dominant rule of what temperature (and climate) we'll have.

Oh cool is it opposite day today?

 

[DrPizza]

So - they have some graphs, then misinterpret the graphs either out of ignorance, else intentionally to mislead the average idiot. This is what the left side of that page shows - how things are misinterpreted. (Fortunately, the right side explains why the left side is wrong.) Here's just one item:

Sure, CO2 often lagged BEHIND global warming over the past million years or so. They use that fact to come to the erroneous conclusion that CO2 cannot cause global temperatures to increase. But actually, what they've shown is something that we should be really alarmed about.

We already know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This fact is indisputable. And, we know that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing specifically because of the burning of fossil fuels. Some idiots will say "durrr, that might be because of volcanoes", look around, and high five a bunch of other idiots who say "yeahhhhh. Look at the scientists now. We showed 'em. They didn't even think of that one. Buncha dummies." Scientists aren't that stupid. Where the CO2 comes from can be determined from radio-isotopes. Plus, we kind of keep track of how much coal & oil we burn. You know, those great big tankers filled with oil? They can be counted. And, it's relatively simple chemistry to determine how much CO2 is given off when those fossil fuels are burned. Plus, volcanoes don't decrease the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere - they just give off CO2 without burning oxygen (at least not much, there are always the trees that get in the way of lava, etc.)

Now, where the hell was I? Oh yeah - CO2 lagging warming. Guess why CO2 generally didn't precede warming - because warming CAN be caused by other factors. At least, to our knowledge, T-Rex wasn't driving automobiles around & burning coal. Heck, coal hadn't even been invented.

So, where did the CO2 come from after the Earth warmed? Magic? Did the fossil fuels magically turn into CO2 millions of years ago? It came from the same places it's going to come from again, if the Earth continues to warm. So, we'll have that CO2, along with all of our man-made CO2. Good times.

But keep pretending graphs prove something that they don't - that way you can continue to mislead people for a few more decades. Especially Americans - they really suck in science skills.

 

[Rubycon]

I heard a lady talking to her husband in a tire shop informing him from a poster on the wall that they fill the tires with Nitrogen here, and then explaining to him how I bet they don't do that at the gas station. Like the tire shop was somehow superior because they put this exotic nitrogen in your tire even though the air is 70 fucking percent nitrogen anyway. I understand that it might make a tiny difference in how long your tires stay inflated, but nothing you will really notice. People are just clueless on the basic make up of the planet, which makes convincing them of reality difficult.

I'm surprised they haven't made clear tires filling them with Xenon so they could be illuminated! :hmm:

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Am I seeing the same site as everyone else? What I see is a site that relatively accurately presents both sides of the argument, and in my opinion the "scientific consensus" side is much stronger and backed by a greater body of evidence. I'm certainly not seeing a site that misrepresents or misinterprets either side in a significant way.

 

[postmortemIA]

Am I seeing the same site as everyone else? What I see is a site that relatively accurately presents both sides of the argument, and in my opinion the "scientific consensus" side is much stronger and backed by a greater body of evidence. I'm certainly not seeing a site that misrepresents or misinterprets either side in a significant way.

I am seeing that CO2 levels can still go very much up even if we stop all the oil and coal burning.

 

[SunSamurai]

More like Ice Gore Data

AMIRITE?

 

[sandorski]

if CO2 is a pollutant, then so is O2 and N2 and argon
too much argon will kill me

It will.

 

[biggestmuff]

soundclips/HowardSternShow/whoooocares.wav

 

[TheVrolok]

Am I seeing the same site as everyone else? What I see is a site that relatively accurately presents both sides of the argument, and in my opinion the "scientific consensus" side is much stronger and backed by a greater body of evidence. I'm certainly not seeing a site that misrepresents or misinterprets either side in a significant way.

I'm with you, and this thread confuses me.

 

[Hacp]

Causation =/= correlation.

 

[TheVrolok]

Causation =/= correlation.

But but but .. pirates!