Ode to the Climate Science-Denier

[Timshel]

No... We don't have to worry about human health risks until CO2 reaches levels 500 times greater than current levels. The 'millionaire' analogy was given to illustrate how small and insignificant CO2 is in our atmosphere, to idiot dolts like Onzies, who thinks it is a harmful pollutant.

It appears you are wrong on the OSHA standards.

Due to the health risks associated with carbon dioxide exposure, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration says that average exposure for healthy adults during an eight-hour work day should not exceed 5,000 ppm (0.5%). The maximum safe level for infants, children, the elderly and individuals with cardio-pulmonary health issues is significantly less. For short-term (under ten minutes) exposure, the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) limit is 30,000 ppm (3%). NIOSH also states that carbon dioxide concentrations exceeding 4% are immediately dangerous to life and health[48] although physiological experiments show that such levels can be tolerated for some time [49].

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide"]Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Carbon-dioxide-2D-dimensions.svg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Carbon-dioxide-2D-dimensions.svg/120px-Carbon-dioxide-2D-dimensions.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/1f/Carbon-dioxide-2D-dimensions.svg/120px-Carbon-dioxide-2D-dimensions.svg.png[/ame]

5% would be under 150 times current levels. That is what it is safe to work in for eight hours. OSHA does not mean that that would be fine for our environment. The greenhouse effect does not happen in a mine shaft.

Plants WOULD thrive in a desert with higher CO2 concentrations, because it would let them retain more moisture. And most greenhouses I've been in, are considerably warmer than what I find comfortable... but then, we invented air conditioning because that can often be the case outside of a greenhouse. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have nothing to do with drought or the ocean. We've had approximately the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for as long as man has roamed the Earth. Before man, there was a much higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and this is the environment most plants evolved in. These early high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, certainly didn't destroy the oceans or cause massive droughts, otherwise, we wouldn't be here right now.

MOST modern plants, including food crops, do not do well in extreme heat. The droughts will deprive them of moisture. The high CO2 concentrations will lead to acidity in the oceans and could have negative effects on sea life.

Yes, animals and plants once lived in environments with higher Co2 concentrations (it was no where near 500 times today's levels and was significantly lower than the OSHA guidelines). They were not today's animals and plants. Further, they had time to adapt to that then new environment and thrive. Rapid change will not be good for most living things. Something will survive and possibly thrive. It might not be us.

No, water vapor doesn't "follow" carbon dioxide, it is present no matter if there is CO2 in the atmosphere or not. Approximately 94% of the "greenhouse gases" is water vapor, carbon dioxide makes up less than 5%. Regardless of what we do about CO2, we still have all that water vapor, causing a greenhouse effect. If we ever eliminated the greenhouse effect, all life on Earth would vanish, the oceans would dry up, and our planet would become like Venus. I think I like it better the way it is now!

Co2 and methane have the greatest influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere. Water vapor varies in relation to that and therefore water vapor follows co2.

 

[Timshel]

I read an interesting article not long ago, discussing the aspects of increased CO2 levels in our atmosphere, and what "benefits" we might expect from just a 10-20% increase. It was astonishing! We would actually be able to grow food in the deserts! Trees would grow faster and more hearty, eliminating much of the deforestation and yielding more supply of timber. The rain forests would thrive, and eliminate any concerns of endangerment. Very interesting perspective indeed.

Do you believe it is possible to increase it by that much?

 

[NOVA]

Ditzy's post need a laughtrack.



Hahahaha clap clap clap...

So we don't have to worry until the atmosphere becomes a CO2 millionaire? LOL....



hahahaha, clap clap clap

Plants do not thrive in a desert. The warming caused by the greenhouse effects are not going to heat up THAT greenhouse nor cause it's sprinkler system to malfunction (i.e., a drought). Further, CO2 causes problems in the ocean.



hahahaha, water vapor, clap clap clap

Water vapor follows the carbon dioxide and so it amplifies the effect of CO2.

I wonder if Topspin would agree that you need to study for you GED and find a tutor to help with your lack of Reading Comprehension...

Its obvious, you either didn't understand what Dixie posted or you just figured mis-characterizing his words would be fun...then you just amused yourself with what you thought was your 'cleverness?'

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It appears you are wrong on the OSHA standards.

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5% would be under 150 times current levels. That is what it is safe to work in for eight hours. OSHA does not mean that that would be fine for our environment. The greenhouse effect does not happen in a mine shaft.

We are never going to be anywhere close to OSHA limits in our atmosphere. That was the point. If you want to be anal and split hairs over the numbers, that's fine, so long as you admit that I am correct in my point. Thanks for confirming that!

MOST modern plants, including food crops, do not do well in extreme heat. The droughts will deprive them of moisture. The high CO2 concentrations will lead to acidity in the oceans and could have negative effects on sea life.

You've not proven that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes droughts. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is not detrimental to sea life, otherwise, we wouldn't have any sea life. Everything in the ocean, evolved on an Earth with much greater concentrations of CO2.

Yes, animals and plants once lived in environments with higher Co2 concentrations (it was no where near 500 times today's levels and was significantly lower than the OSHA guidelines). They were not today's animals and plants. Further, they had time to adapt to that then new environment and thrive. Rapid change will not be good for most living things. Something will survive and possibly thrive. It might not be us.

LMAO... had time to adapt? They sprang forth into existence in a much richer concentration of CO2! They didn't need to have time to adapt, there was not an adaptation! They've had to adapt to not having as much CO2 in the past few million years. And there is no "rapid change" in the level of CO2... 100 years ago, it was approximately 260 ppm, it is presently 320 ppm.... that is not a rapid change by any stretch, and last check, the animal, plant, and sea life on Earth is doing just fine!

Co2 and methane have the greatest influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere. Water vapor varies in relation to that and therefore water vapor follows co2.

Water vapor makes up 94% of the greenhouse gas, it doesn't vary in relation to anything else, it is the predominate element in all greenhouse gas. That is a fact of science. The THEORY is that CO2 increases cause a thermal effect, but we do not know how much (if any) man is contributing to the increase in temperature, or how much is a natural phenomenon. We DO know, long before man roamed the planet, there was considerably MORE CO2 in the atmosphere, and life didn't seem to have any trouble evolving into existence or thriving!

 

[Cypress]

We are never going to be anywhere close to OSHA limits in our atmosphere. That was the point. If you want to be anal and split hairs over the numbers, that's fine, so long as you admit that I am correct in my point. Thanks for confirming that!

You've not proven that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes droughts. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is not detrimental to sea life, otherwise, we wouldn't have any sea life. Everything in the ocean, evolved on an Earth with much greater concentrations of CO2.

LMAO... had time to adapt? They sprang forth into existence in a much richer concentration of CO2! They didn't need to have time to adapt, there was not an adaptation! They've had to adapt to not having as much CO2 in the past few million years. And there is no "rapid change" in the level of CO2... 100 years ago, it was approximately 260 ppm, it is presently 320 ppm.... that is not a rapid change by any stretch, and last check, the animal, plant, and sea life on Earth is doing just fine!

Water vapor makes up 94% of the greenhouse gas, it doesn't vary in relation to anything else, it is the predominate element in all greenhouse gas. That is a fact of science. The THEORY is that CO2 increases cause a thermal effect, but we do not know how much (if any) man is contributing to the increase in temperature, or how much is a natural phenomenon. We DO know, long before man roamed the planet, there was considerably MORE CO2 in the atmosphere, and life didn't seem to have any trouble evolving into existence or thriving!

the last time CO2 levels were this high was 15 million years ago.

I know you, like many conservatives, don't believe in evolution, but the life on the planet today has evolved substantially from life that existed 15 million years ago. Our own species, homo sapiens is only something like 50,000 years old.

Here's something else you should take into account into your analysis Professor. Modern civilization arose and has existed in the presence of a relatively stable climate, and on the basis of the modern distribution of ecosystems. Areas that support Farming, fishing, and water supplies have remained relatively consistent, and the foundation of modern civilization and population centers have been a function of this relatively stable biosphere.

If the climate undergoes drastic changes, thanks to republicans, all bets are off. No doubt, life will adapt. Some life will do better than others. No doubt that weather patterns, and the spatial distribution of ecosystems, arable farmland, and water supplies will shift. Modern civilization, unlike our nomadic prehistoric ancestors is not exactly in a position to shift around on a whim.

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report

UCLA

You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx

Dixie wrote:

"...last check, the animal, plant, and sea life on Earth is doing just fine!"

I appreciate your robust scientific analysis and calculations. Would you mind posting your analyses and calculations?

However, instead of taking your conjectures, guesses, and speculations as being credible scientific analysis, perhaps you might want to review what actual scientists say the impacts of climate change are on the ecology.

May I suggest the U.S. National Academy of Sciences? They might be a tad more expert and credible than the Sarah Palin twitter, or the "Climate Audit" blog.


"Ecological Impacts of Climate Change"
U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/ecological_impacts.pdf

.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

the last time CO2 levels were this high was 15 million years ago.

And you know this for a fact because the Dinosaurs had precision-calibrated measuring devices, which documented the actual CO2 levels back then????

Okay...... Just for the fucking sake of argument, let's say you are right.... We're here, aren't we? The Earth didn't cease to support life, did it? The oceans didn't become so acidic nothing could live in them, did they? We didn't have to tax the dinosaurs for their carbon offsets to save the planet, did we? ........Maybe the Dinos were Liberals????? Huh???

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Maybe the Dinos were Liberals?

That WOULD explain how they became extinct! lol

 

[Cypress]

And you know this for a fact because the Dinosaurs had precision-calibrated measuring devices, which documented the actual CO2 levels back then????

Ice cores, professor.

You really shouldn't even be posting on a science thread if you aren't aware of ice core data, and isotope data, let alone the fact you are an evolution-denier.


Would you mind reading the U.S. national academy of science report on ecological impacts due to climate change, and report back to me with your rebuttal?

I actually haven't heard a single word from you, other than guesses and unfounded assertions, that would rebut the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ice cores, professor.

You really shouldn't even be posting on a science thread if you aren't aware of ice core data, and isotope data, let alone the fact you are an evolution-denier.


Would you mind reading the U.S. national academy of science report on ecological impacts due to climate change, and report back to me with your rebuttal?

I actually haven't heard a single word from you, other than guesses and unfounded assertions, that would rebut the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

Riiiiiight... and they can tell conclusively from ice cores, the exact levels of CO2 in the atmosphere from 15 million years ago? I call bullshit! But... like I said, for the sake of argument... we are still here, aren't we? The ocean didn't turn into an uninhabitable pit of acid, did it? Nope.... looks like LIFE emerged in abundance all over the planet! So it's pretty goddamn obvious to everyone who isn't retarded, that increased CO2 in the atmosphere, didn't harm a thing! If it didn't cause catastrophe 15 million years ago, it isn't going to cause a catastrophe today!

And I have already told you how I feel about data from USNAS... I think you just like to keep dropping that name because it makes you feel like you have some legitimate backing for your stupidity. It's an impressive sounding name, I'll grant you that... sounds like people who might know what the fuck they are talking about, doesn't it? Problem is, they don't draw the same conclusions as you do!

 

[NOVA]

Ice cores, professor.

You really shouldn't even be posting on a science thread if you aren't aware of ice core data, and isotope data, let alone the fact you are an evolution-denier.


Would you mind reading the U.S. national academy of science report on ecological impacts due to climate change, and report back to me with your rebuttal?

I actually haven't heard a single word from you, other than guesses and unfounded assertions, that would rebut the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

Ok Professor....lets look at some data...
I was pretty well dizzy after the a couple paragraphs, but I'm sure you'll explain it to us novices....


http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full

PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA​

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years

NOTE:
Figure 4

Fluctuations of pCO2 for the last 500 My, normalized by the estimate of pCO2 obtained from the most recent value of ζ.

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167/F4.large.jpg

So...are we to believe UCLA or the NAC as you suggest.

Fig. 4 reveals that CO2 levels have mostly decreased for the last 175 My. Prior to that point they appear to have fluctuated from about two to four times modern levels with a dominant period of about 100 My. The decline for the last 175 My is also present in several previous pCO2 reconstructions (7, 8, 26, 27), and the entire curve displays some similarity to a previous estimate derived from the geologic record of carbonate formation.

 

[Cypress]

Ok Professor....lets look at some data...
I was pretty well dizzy after the a couple paragraphs, but I'm sure you'll explain it to us novices....


http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full

PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA​

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years

NOTE:
Figure 4

Fluctuations of pCO2 for the last 500 My, normalized by the estimate of pCO2 obtained from the most recent value of ζ.

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167/F4.large.jpg

So...are we to believe UCLA or the NAC as you suggest.

Fig. 4 reveals that CO2 levels have mostly decreased for the last 175 My. Prior to that point they appear to have fluctuated from about two to four times modern levels with a dominant period of about 100 My. The decline for the last 175 My is also present in several previous pCO2 reconstructions (7, 8, 26, 27), and the entire curve displays some similarity to a previous estimate derived from the geologic record of carbonate formation.

Here's your problem professor.

You don't understand science, and you randomly picked out an NAS study that is ten years old, and deals with a 500 million year geolgic record. An entirely different kind of study, on a different temporal scale than the new UCLA study.

You're comparing apples to oranges, Einstein. The UCLA record deals with the last 15 million years. I can't waste my time with scientific illiterates, unless its for comedy value, but every legtimate scientist knows that CO2 was highest in the mesozoic.

Here's some important tips about the Mesozoic, you should take into account in your analysis, genuis.

Life forms in the mesozoic were adapted to that climate, and those life forms were almost universally different than they are today.

Global temperatures were hotter in the mesozoic, and a combination of thermal expansion of water, eustacy, and the.llack of any substantial ice caps meant much of the continents were under water.

So, you're okay with flooding the coastal areas of the continent. Got it.

 

[NOVA]

Here's your problem professor.

You don't understand science, and you randomly picked out an NAS study that is ten years old, and deals with a 500 million year geolgic record. An entirely different kind of study, on a different temporal scale than the new UCLA study.

The study is cited covers the last 15 my if it covers the last 500 my, fool.
and it shows the opposite of UCLA claims...

So your claim is, this study is bogus and the new and improved study is now fact....amazing how the scientific FACTS can turn topsy-turvy in just a few years...and if the UCLA study is found flawed next year you'll just accept those new and improved findings won't you...(unless it doesn't agree with your Church of Al Gore religion)

You're comparing apples to oranges, Einstein. The UCLA record deals with the last 15 million years. I can't waste my time with scientific illiterates, unless its for comedy value, but every legtimate scientist knows that CO2 was highest in the mesozoic.


so we are to ignore the record of 500 my because only the last 15 my is of importance...tell me about that...what occurred earlier is of no value, right.

Here's some important tips about the Mesozoic, you should take into account in your analysis, genuis.

Life forms in the mesozoic were adapted to that climate, and those life forms were almost universally different than they are today.

Global temperatures were hotter in the mesozoic, and a combination of thermal expansion of water, eustacy, and the.llack of any substantial ice caps meant much of the continents were under water.

So, you're okay with flooding the coastal areas of the continent. Got it.

Me? I can hardly stop it...my magic mojo isn't that strong....the fact is...we didn't cause the earlier temp. changes and we're not causing changes now....we can't win a fight with mother nature and we never will....

.

Carry on Pinhead....I'm entertained

 

[Timshel]

We are never going to be anywhere close to OSHA limits in our atmosphere. That was the point. If you want to be anal and split hairs over the numbers, that's fine, so long as you admit that I am correct in my point. Thanks for confirming that!

Your point is not relevant. The OSHA level is for what is safe, in an isolated area, for 8 hour periods of exposure. It is not what it is safe to live in and it does not take into account warming.

You've not proven that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes droughts. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is not detrimental to sea life, otherwise, we wouldn't have any sea life. Everything in the ocean, evolved on an Earth with much greater concentrations of CO2.

Drought stricken areas have increased significantly in the last 30 years.

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/drought_research.shtml

The ancestors of our current ocean life may have evolved in higher concentrations of CO2, but those were animals adapted to that environment.

LMAO... had time to adapt? They sprang forth into existence in a much richer concentration of CO2! They didn't need to have time to adapt, there was not an adaptation! They've had to adapt to not having as much CO2 in the past few million years. And there is no "rapid change" in the level of CO2... 100 years ago, it was approximately 260 ppm, it is presently 320 ppm.... that is not a rapid change by any stretch, and last check, the animal, plant, and sea life on Earth is doing just fine!

Well maybe you want to share what period you are talking about. I assumed you meant the early eocene era. It is believed the mammals that existed then were much smaller than mammals from earlier periods or after. The smaller size made them better able to hanlde heat. They adapted to it.

Abrupt climate changes happen when a threshold is crossed in one of many triggers. It is not necessary that CO2 levels grow rapidly (in your dimwitted definition of rapid) to cause an abrupt climate change.

Further, the increase is rapid as measured against past changes in CO2 levels.

Water vapor makes up 94% of the greenhouse gas, it doesn't vary in relation to anything else, it is the predominate element in all greenhouse gas. That is a fact of science. The THEORY is that CO2 increases cause a thermal effect, but we do not know how much (if any) man is contributing to the increase in temperature, or how much is a natural phenomenon. We DO know, long before man roamed the planet, there was considerably MORE CO2 in the atmosphere, and life didn't seem to have any trouble evolving into existence or thriving!

Water vapor follows C02.

THEY WERE DIFFERENT ANIMALS AND PLANTS. Again, no one is saying all life will cease to exist. But abrupt climate changes usually lead to mass extinctions.

You are employing a straw man, as usual.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Your point is not relevant. The OSHA level is for what is safe, in an isolated area, for 8 hour periods of exposure. It is not what it is safe to live in and it does not take into account warming.



Drought stricken areas have increased significantly in the last 30 years.

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/drought_research.shtml

The ancestors of our current ocean life may have evolved in higher concentrations of CO2, but those were animals adapted to that environment.



Well maybe you want to share what period you are talking about. I assumed you meant the early eocene era. It is believed the mammals that existed then were much smaller than mammals from earlier periods or after. The smaller size made them better able to hanlde heat. They adapted to it.

Abrupt climate changes happen when a threshold is crossed in one of many triggers. It is not necessary that CO2 levels grow rapidly (in your dimwitted definition of rapid) to cause an abrupt climate change.

Further, the increase is rapid as measured against past changes in CO2 levels.



Water vapor follows C02.

THEY WERE DIFFERENT ANIMALS AND PLANTS. Again, no one is saying all life will cease to exist. But abrupt climate changes usually lead to mass extinctions.

You are employing a straw man, as usual.

CO2 is still not a pollutant, despite all your idiot words.

 

[Good Luck]

Ice cores, professor.

You really shouldn't even be posting on a science thread if you aren't aware of ice core data, and isotope data, let alone the fact you are an evolution-denier.


Would you mind reading the U.S. national academy of science report on ecological impacts due to climate change, and report back to me with your rebuttal?

I actually haven't heard a single word from you, other than guesses and unfounded assertions, that would rebut the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

Ice cores only go back 600 million years. So much for that claim.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations can only be estimated beyond that range according to other data. Not only that, but the methodology of using ice core samples (actually it's bubbles in ice cores) to determine CO2 concentrations has been challenged by botanical data, using analysis of fossilized plants, that indicate ice cores significantly underestimate CO2 concentrations.

The thing is, while the warming trends are significant, the claims that they are "unprecedented" is based on RECENT geological history. We do not even know for certain how warm it got as little as 500 years ago. The debate is still open whether the Middle Ages warm period was as warm as today. Go back a million years and most of the data is a gnat's eyebrow above pure SWAG.

The FACT is the Earth is warming (currently - kind of). BBut the additional, glossed-over (if not completely ignored) FACT by the AGW crowd is the Earth has BEEN warming since the height of the most recent ice age. And it cooled as a general long-term trend before that. And it warmed for a long period of time before that. etc. etc. etc.

Another point - all these comparisons of mean global temperatures all use a base line from the 1800's. WHAT MAKES YOU IDIOTS THINK THAT IS 'NORMAL"??? Anyone with two connected neurons knows and understands that as little as 1 million years ago (a hiccup in the grand scheme of things) the Earth was MUCH warmer - no ice caps at all. Why shouldn't that (estimated) temperature - which paleo data supports as a much more common occurrence - be the earth "normal" base line. In which case, if we were really concerned about the SCIENCE of mean global temperatures, we should be investigating why the Earth decide to cool down significantly about 800 thousand years ago and stayed that way until now.

One thing for sure that no one, not even AGW idiots dispute: the mean global temperature of a scant 1 million years ago was NOT due to human activity. And it was much warmer. AND there was lots more CO2 in the air.

So:
WHY BLAME HUMANS NOW?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Good luck just jizzed in cypress's face.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Your point is not relevant. The OSHA level is for what is safe, in an isolated area, for 8 hour periods of exposure. It is not what it is safe to live in and it does not take into account warming.

Yes, we can assume OSHA regulations would be safe to live in, day in and day out, without any subsequent harm to people. If there were ANY inherent health risk, the level would be much lower, if allowable at all. Warming has no effect on how CO2 effects humans, it has nothing to do with this point. Regardless of whatever point you wanted to make about OSHA levels of CO2, our atmosphere will never be anywhere close to the minimum levels OSHA deems safe for humans. There is no health risk to increased man-made CO2 in the atmosphere... NONE!

Drought stricken areas have increased significantly in the last 30 years.

Probably because the Earth is in a warming cycle! Duh!
You were challenged to show where CO2 in the atmosphere was causing excessive drought, and you have not done that! You are acting like Chicken Little, pointing to the sky and saying... See it? The sky! It's there! ...Therefore, it was falling! You've presented NOTHING to support your claims, only stuff to support what no one is arguing.

The ancestors of our current ocean life may have evolved in higher concentrations of CO2, but those were animals adapted to that environment.

Uhm, no... they were not "adapted" to anything, it is the environment they originated in and lived in for millions of years... if anything, they have adapted to LESS CO2 in the atmosphere! The point is, life continued and flourished, the oceans didn't turn into uninhabitable pools of acid, the land masses didn't sink, droughts didn't wipe out life on Earth, and not one single dinosaur had to pay Al Gore a penny for their carbon offsets!

Well maybe you want to share what period you are talking about. I assumed you meant the early eocene era. It is believed the mammals that existed then were much smaller than mammals from earlier periods or after. The smaller size made them better able to hanlde heat. They adapted to it.

Again, to "adapt" to something, it has to be one certain way, then change... otherwise, there is nothing to adapt to. The only "adaptation" there could have ever been, was life adapting to LESS CO2 in the atmosphere, because we KNOW FOR A FACT there was much MORE CO2 in the atmosphere back then.

Abrupt climate changes happen when a threshold is crossed in one of many triggers. It is not necessary that CO2 levels grow rapidly (in your dimwitted definition of rapid) to cause an abrupt climate change.

Further, the increase is rapid as measured against past changes in CO2 levels.

You are right, a big huge volcano can erupt and blanket our atmosphere with volcanic ash, and dramatically change the climate. This was the case as recently as 1775, when we had the Little Ice Age. A giant asteroid can hit the Earth and the debris can cause the sun to be blocked for years, wiping out many species of life on the planet... this is what they believe happened to the dinosaurs. But you know what is amazing... WE ARE HERE! A living testament to the resiliency of life on this planet, and the ability of life to adapt to virtually ANYTHING nature throws at it! I find it hard to believe a century-long increase of carbon dioxide by less than 100 parts per million in our atmosphere, is going to cause some catastrophic result we can't overcome! I find it impossible to believe that a median increase in ambient temperatures of 1 degree over that same century, is going to cause a problem. Call it 'common sense' or whatever, I just think you are WAYYYyyy overreacting to this.

Water vapor follows C02.

Uhmmm.. noooo... water vapor is always present without regard for CO2... it is through a process known as "evaporation" this happens, and has absolutely nothing to do with how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.

THEY WERE DIFFERENT ANIMALS AND PLANTS.

NO THEY WEREN'T, THEY WERE OUR PREDECESSORS! They originated in that environment, they didn't ADAPT to it! They lived in that environment, and evolved vigorously! WE are the result of those same exact animals, and we have the same exact capacity as they had to adapt to changes in the environment.

Again, no one is saying all life will cease to exist. But abrupt climate changes usually lead to mass extinctions.

GOOD! Maybe we can have a mass extinction of PINHEADS!

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Dixie is on point and jizzing all over Stringfield.

 

[Timshel]

Yes, we can assume OSHA regulations would be safe to live in, day in and day out, without any subsequent harm to people. If there were ANY inherent health risk, the level would be much lower, if allowable at all. Warming has no effect on how CO2 effects humans, it has nothing to do with this point. Regardless of whatever point you wanted to make about OSHA levels of CO2, our atmosphere will never be anywhere close to the minimum levels OSHA deems safe for humans. There is no health risk to increased man-made CO2 in the atmosphere... NONE!

No, it would not be safe to live in day in and day out. You apparently do not understand what the standards are for.

http://www.inspectapedia.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm

Basic Information about Concentrations of CO2 in Air
1,000,000 ppm of a gas = 100 % concentration of the gas, and 10,000 ppm of a gas in air = a 1% concentration.
At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 parts per million or ppm) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy.
The concentration of carbon dioxide must be over about 2% (20,000 ppm) before most people are aware of its presence unless the odor of an associated material (auto exhaust or fermenting yeast, for instance) is present at lower concentrations.
Above 2%, carbon dioxide may cause a feeling of heaviness in the chest and/or more frequent and deeper respirations.
If exposure continues at that level for several hours, minimal "acidosis" (an acid condition of the blood) may occur but more frequently is absent.
Breathing rate doubles at 3% CO2 and is four times the normal rate at 5% CO2.
Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: at levels above 5%, concentration CO2 is directly toxic. [At lower levels we may be seeing effects of a reduction in the relative amount of oxygen rather than direct toxicity of CO2.]
Symptoms of high or prolonged exposure to carbon dioxide include headache, increased heart rate, dizziness, fatigue, rapid breathing, visual and hearing dysfunctions. Exposure to higher levels may cause unconsciousness or death within minutes of exposure.

I am glad you are saying these OSHA levels are not good for our environment. The OSHA shit was your point, not mine. It was you that argued that CO2 levels are not likely to reach levels where they are DIRECTLY harmful to human health.

Probably because the Earth is in a warming cycle! Duh!
You were challenged to show where CO2 in the atmosphere was causing excessive drought, and you have not done that! You are acting like Chicken Little, pointing to the sky and saying... See it? The sky! It's there! ...Therefore, it was falling! You've presented NOTHING to support your claims, only stuff to support what no one is arguing.

So now you are arguing that CO2 does not contribute to warming? Were you not just telling us about the wonders we could obtain from warming the planet with CO2?

Uhm, no... they were not "adapted" to anything, it is the environment they originated in and lived in for millions of years... if anything, they have adapted to LESS CO2 in the atmosphere! The point is, life continued and flourished, the oceans didn't turn into uninhabitable pools of acid, the land masses didn't sink, droughts didn't wipe out life on Earth, and not one single dinosaur had to pay Al Gore a penny for their carbon offsets!

No, they adapted. There were larger mammals that existed before that period, which died out or evolved into the smaller mammals.

Again, to "adapt" to something, it has to be one certain way, then change... otherwise, there is nothing to adapt to. The only "adaptation" there could have ever been, was life adapting to LESS CO2 in the atmosphere, because we KNOW FOR A FACT there was much MORE CO2 in the atmosphere back then.

There was more CO2 during eocene era than now. There was less during the preceding early paleocene era than in the eocene.

You are right, a big huge volcano can erupt and blanket our atmosphere with volcanic ash, and dramatically change the climate. This was the case as recently as 1775, when we had the Little Ice Age. A giant asteroid can hit the Earth and the debris can cause the sun to be blocked for years, wiping out many species of life on the planet... this is what they believe happened to the dinosaurs. But you know what is amazing... WE ARE HERE! A living testament to the resiliency of life on this planet, and the ability of life to adapt to virtually ANYTHING nature throws at it! I find it hard to believe a century-long increase of carbon dioxide by less than 100 parts per million in our atmosphere, is going to cause some catastrophic result we can't overcome! I find it impossible to believe that a median increase in ambient temperatures of 1 degree over that same century, is going to cause a problem. Call it 'common sense' or whatever, I just think you are WAYYYyyy overreacting to this.

AGAIN, no one is saying that all life will cease to exist. That's nothing but a strawman. Though it is remotely possible, I don't even see much reason to believe we will cease to exist. But it could definitely decrease our quality of life.

Again, abrupt climate change happens when a threshold is crossed on one of various triggers. It is due to feedback loops that forces the climate into a new state. We don't have to raise CO2 abruptly in order to experience an abrupt climate change. We just have to push them over the threshold that will force the environment into a new state.

Uhmmm.. noooo... water vapor is always present without regard for CO2... it is through a process known as "evaporation" this happens, and has absolutely nothing to do with how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.

You are wrong. Water vapor is a feedback effect and not a forcing like CO2. To much water vapor in the atmosphere and it rains. Not enough and the ocean surface will provide some. But once the temperature raises from other effects (co2) the water vapor levels will rise and stay high.

Water vapor is an greenhouse gas. But it cannot remain abnormally high on its own.

NO THEY WEREN'T, THEY WERE OUR PREDECESSORS! They originated in that environment, they didn't ADAPT to it! They lived in that environment, and evolved vigorously! WE are the result of those same exact animals, and we have the same exact capacity as they had to adapt to changes in the environment.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. See above.

Yes, we can possibly adapt to a changing environment. If the environment changes quickly our chances are greatly diminished. If we do adapt it will come with sever suffering among those who do not possess the traits suitable for the new environment.

You are just an idiot. That's all there is to it. This is way above the head of a dumbass that does not understand how we can establish that we did not live in the age of dinosaurs or that one can be equally divided into thirds. You should really just shut up and listen to the adults. It's doubtful, but maybe you will learn something.

 

[Timshel]

Dixie is on point and jizzing all over Stringfield.

From an idiot who undoubtedly believes that all scientist are part of the noahide fascist conspiracy.