Is this is logical argument against man-made C02? Cambrian Period CO2 levels vs Current

quote:

---

Is this is logical argument against man-made C02?

---

There are NO logical arguments against man-made CO2. They don't exist. Man-Made CO2 is settled science... not debatable... an irrefutable fact... it's silly to suggest otherwise. We, as a species are literally killing mother earth.

Leftists everywhere, probably.

quote:

---

The more salient question is, if CO2 drives climate, what caused the cooling and drop in CO2?

---

oh, misread the question first...

Not sure. I was thinking you were going to say a meteor.. but that would dramatically increase the GHG due from impact and fires and all that end of the world stuff I think..

quote:

---

The more salient question is, if CO2 drives climate, what caused the cooling and drop in CO2?

---

Too many dang kids leaving the door open when the AC is on.

quote:

---

Too many dang kids leaving the door open when the AC is on.

---

are you my dad? back from the grave?

quote:

---

oh, misread the question first...

Not sure. I was thinking you were going to say a meteor.. but that would dramatically increase the GHG due from impact and fires and all that end of the world stuff I think..

---

93% of CO2 is contained in the oceans.

Solubility of gas (CO2) in liquid (oceans) decreases as temperature increases. More Atmospheric CO2 = More Heat = More CO2 exiting the oceans and entering the atmosphere causing more heat.

Hence the question, what caused the cooling and drop in CO2?

Logic doesn't work against mental illness.

To say that humans contribute to atmospheric CO2 by burning hydrocarbons, and removing carbon sinks such as forests, is NOT to say that the only way the atmosphere gets CO2 is through humans burning hydrocarbons. Do you understand that? Just because humans contribute, doesn't mean that's the only source.

The Earth is an inanimate object and totally indifferent to atmospheric composition. You cannot "kill" the planet.

While elevated CO2 levels as seen before in Earth's history have been higher, it doesn't mean that higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere today cannot have adverse effects on humanity. Just because there have been periods when the Earth's atmosphere had different compositions, doesn't mean that we would be fine with those today.

The whole point is not about "saving the Earth!1!" but more about how mankind can adapt to changing climates. If the planet warms for any reason, we will have to adapt. Sea level will rise, rain patterns will change, insurance will go up, etc...

Too often this debate is framed by the extremists on both sides.

I haven't looked into it for a few years, but the last time I looked at the "Carbon Dioxide Cycle" there was about 20% of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere that the scientists could not say where it came from. Then, all the CO2, except just a little bit was absorbed out of the atmosphere by the Earth, by forests, the ocean, etc., and yes, those same scientist couldn't account for where about 20% of the total that gets reabsorbed goes to.

So they know where 80% of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from and they know where slightly more than 80% goes to. They also know one more important number: 1%. That's the amount that human activity contributes to the Carbon Dioxide Cycle. Oh yeah, they also know that of that 1%, less than half of it actually doesn't get reabsorbed by the Earth, but they can't tell you how, but that's how they know it's all your fault.

I look at these numbers and conclude that there really isn't anything human beings can do the change the CO2 cycle, it will inevitably do what it wants to do. Scientists (that's still what they call themselves isn't it?) look at these numbers and want to outlaw electricity.

I also make another conclusion: if the Earth farts a billion or so tons into the atmosphere, it's affects are likely to exceed any change in human made affects by an order of magnitude.

quote:

---

More CO2 and higher temperatures makes the plants grow like on Cialis. That growth increases O2 obviously which is good for animal health and insects next. 3-4 degrees warmer could enhance farming as well

---

Yep, but you still need water.

So while a 3-4 degree warming could encourage higher crop yields, it's hard to predict where that might happen. In the 70s Soviet scientist were researching the effects of a warming atmosphere, and their results led them to believe that it would increase crop yields in the USSR, and increase desertification, thereby decreasing yields, in North America. The Ruskies were all in for global warming.

It's those pesky unintended consequences that will bite you in the arse every time.

quote:

---

What was around back in the older periods of Earth to make those GHGs so astronomically high? Wasn't us... Dinosaur farts?

---

. . . well, dinosaurs did have really big farts that sounded like thunder