• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Well, Prince whats his name from England said at the conference today that we only had 7 years to act before it would be too late, not sure of his source, but he flew there in his private jet.

go figure.
 
I'm fairly sure global warming is just fear mongering.

There is alot more going on than just CO2 emisions. Just look at this recent trend with sun spots, and lower sun output. No one saw it comming and no one knows what effect it will have long-term, no one can predict when it will flare back up.

I don't think science is capable of predicting ice ages or global warming. The increase in CO2 IMO is just measuring the reaction of biological life to decreasing global temperature. Makes sense, ice reflects light + lower temperatures = Less plant photosynthesis. I really see it as that simple.
 
the main difference between those who reject "global warming" and those who are serious enough to understand it's implications, is that science
is talking about facts which are harder to find, but give certainty,
the others are just like bugs who are searching everywhere for all kinds of tiny faults so they can be fed.
science has brought many wonderful things to the world,
the others rather,
smell only from rottenness and corruption, biasing of facts and cunning words.
 
mutz said:
the main difference between those who reject "global warming" and those who are serious enough to understand it's implications, is that science
is talking about facts which are harder to find, but give certainty,
the others are just like bugs who are searching everywhere for all kinds of tiny faults so they can be fed.
science has brought many wonderful things to the world,
the others rather,
smell only from rottenness and corruption, biasing of facts and cunning words.
Click to expand...

My shirt needs some ironing, and I heard you were the best
 
Climate change deniers vs the consensus.....yea, that sounds like a real objective source you got there.

Edit - Why isn't this in P&N?
 
DrPizza said:
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.
Click to expand...
You mean like Mann, et al or Briffa's Hockey Sticks?
 
I can't understand how anyone doesn't look at that second graph shown and realize man made global warming is a joke?

It's pretty freaking simple. A. CO2 FOLLOWS rise in global temperature. It does not CAUSE it. B. Going back as far as 400,000 years ago, you can see the temperatures rise and fall in a cyclical pattern. There was no man made CO2 until the last 200 years or so. If that's the case, what the fuck caused the global warming in the past? And why in the hell would you assume that us going into a cyclical global warming period is this time caused by something different than what has caused it over the last 400,000 years? It doesn't make ANY FREAKING SENSE.
 
I don't think the question is that if warming is a natural trend or not but how much worse it will be with human input. The issue also is that warming leads to positive feedback. Warmer temperatures mean more water vapor (also a greenhouse gas) and less ice coverage (more sunlight absorbed). Then there are issues like ocean currents being effected by decrease in the salinity of the water. Venus is a prime example of runaway global warming.

to be sure everyone is looking at the same thing
 
Last edited:
JTsyo said:
I don't think the issue is of that warming is not a natural trend but how much worse it will be with human input. The issue also is that warming leads to positive feedback. Warmer temperatures mean more water vapor (also a greenhouse gas) and less ice coverage (more sunlight absorbed). Then there issues like ocean currents being effected by decrease in the salinity of the water. Venus is a prime example of runaway global warming.

to be sure everyone is looking at the same thing
Click to expand...

🙄
 
JTsyo said:
I don't think the issue is of that warming is not a natural trend but how much worse it will be with human input. The issue also is that warming leads to positive feedback. Warmer temperatures mean more water vapor (also a greenhouse gas) and less ice coverage (more sunlight absorbed). Then there issues like ocean currents being effected by decrease in the salinity of the water. Venus is a prime example of runaway global warming.

to be sure everyone is looking at the same thing
Click to expand...

and that has nothing to do with Venus receiving twice the solar radiation per metre compared to the Earth...

(It's atmosphere is also 96% CO2).
 
CO2 is not the huge problem as long as we make sure to replant forests that we cut down. CO on the other hand... or do plants take care of that too? I forget now.
 
Increased CO2 levels will just lead to higher crop yields and more robust plant growth. Just ask any weed grower.
 
PlasmaBomb said:
and that has nothing to do with Venus receiving twice the solar radiation per metre compared to the Earth...

(It's atmosphere is also 96% CO2).
Click to expand...

I was just trying to point to how green house gases can multiple the effects of solar radiation. The average temperature on Venus is way more than 2x that of Earth's average.
 
JTsyo said:
I was just trying to point to how green house gases can multiple the effects of solar radiation. The average temperature on Venus is way more than 2x that of Earth's average.
Click to expand...
If this held true, then Venus' temp would be MUCH higher. Venus' atmospheric mass and pressure are 90-100 times more than Terra. In fact, you could therefore argue the opposite is true and this disproves CO2 as a GHG. CO2 is a GHG, but the effect minimizes in an inverse log to concentration.

edit - 800F? Wow, higher than I remember from long ago, but that was before a Venus lander...
 
Last edited:
techs said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are many sites of dubious honesty and at least one former vice president of dubious honesty that are promoting global warming "theories"
Hell they have long email discussions on how they can manipulate the data to suit their needs.
 
the output of the sun is the single largest influence on temperature of earth
1% increase/decrease in solar output has a bigger effect on earth temperatures than any of this other stuff
 
FoBoT said:
the output of the sun is the single largest influence on temperature of earth
1% increase/decrease in solar output has a bigger effect on earth temperatures than any of this other stuff
Click to expand...

So we must band together immediately to meet this crisis by sending hundreds of billions of dollars to developing countries so they can reduce solar output. ACT NOW! This is the worst crisis mankind has ever had to face and if we don't do something right now we are doomed. You don't want your children to grow up in a planet without food, water, fish or animals do you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top