This needs to be answered! (Page 3): Well said!! :sm24:...

debeda

MatthewlovesAyn wrote:

Respect is something that is earned. I don't crav... (show quote)

Well said!!

emarine

nwtk2007 wrote:

Show us the proof that burning f****l f**ls is the cause of the warming.

Think. If the records show that CO2 increases after warming, then how can it be the cause????

Is this thing on???

Ok...

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

emarine wrote:

Ok...

That looks pretty convincing until the scale is expanded and it's seen that CO2 rises, in some cases, as much as 800 years after temps rise.

Morgan

emarine wrote:

Ok...

Great chart ~em, think I'll use it.

They need a new chart that goes higher.

Morgan

nwtk2007 wrote:

That looks pretty convincing until the scale is expanded and it's seen that CO2 rises, in some cases, as much as 800 years after temps rise.

The graph directly parallels with the rise of CO2, the problem with the graph is it covers a wide range of years in the thousands yet toward the end we can see the direct incline off the chart CO2 and do not have the temperature data yet of the temperatures that have recently followed. Maybe we can find a more explicit chart of the last three hundred years.

What we do see is a natural pattern of the earth and its rollercoaster ride, where high and lows were consistent, until the last two hundred years or so when we came into the industrial age.

These are simple facts, no party agenda, it is what it is.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Scientists and laypersons together attempt to rationalize the lag in CO2 levels rising AFTER temp increase. In doing so they make even more assumptions which are also not proven or supported by evidence. They assume on top of assumptions because they are convinced that CO2 is the driving force behind warming. They even proclaim that rises in CO2 levels are both the cause and effect of warming. If true, I would have to ask, how is the trend ever reversed??

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Morgan wrote:

The graph directly parallels with the rise of CO2,... (show quote)

Even the guys who made the graph admit to the lag; as much as a 1000 year lag. If the x-axis is expanded it is easily seen. What they DO do is make more assumptions and try to rationalize the finding. But they certainly do not deny it as you are doing. LOL!!

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Morgan wrote:

The graph directly parallels with the rise of CO2,... (show quote)

""What we do see is a natural pattern of the earth and its rollercoaster ride, where high and lows were consistent, until the last two hundred years or so when we came into the industrial age.""

LOL! We don't see that at all!

Morgan

nwtk2007 wrote:

""What we do see is a natural pattern of the earth and its rollercoaster ride, where high and lows were consistent, until the last two hundred years or so when we came into the industrial age.""

LOL! We don't see that at all!

Then you are blind and that has been the problem. LOL

Morgan

nwtk2007 wrote:

Even the guys who made the graph admit to the lag; as much as a 1000 year lag. If the x-axis is expanded it is easily seen. What they DO do is make more assumptions and try to rationalize the finding. But they certainly do not deny it as you are doing. LOL!!

Try and read and comprehend, what did I say? I said the data of the earth's temperatures we not yet stated and will follow, but I'm sure there's another more precise chart out there for you to try and wrap your head around, as the rest of all the countries in the world has.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Morgan wrote:

Try and read and comprehend, what did I say? I sai... (show quote)

"I said the data of the earth's temperatures we not yet stated and will follow"

What??

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Morgan wrote:

Then you are blind and that has been the problem. LOL

We are talking about g****l w*****g and c*****e c****e. You are only, I guess, referring to CO2 levels. Once again, it is your assumption that CO2 is driving the temp increases.

emarine

nwtk2007 wrote:

That looks pretty convincing until the scale is expanded and it's seen that CO2 rises, in some cases, as much as 800 years after temps rise.

Very true... but this was before the possibility of mans impact on warming... we only know that Co2 is now off the chart compared to the last 400,000 years from sampling... I think we should move forward with caution reducing Co2 where possible without massive economic impact... its foolish to ignore it...

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

MatthewlovesAyn wrote:

Amazing how many people (like Floyd) mistake anecdotal for evidential. People like Algore who claim to be doing something by "raising awareness" remind me of the snake oil salesmen of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Their ingredients just don't work. And his 'carbon footprint' is the size of some small towns.

You wouldn't know the t***h if it hit you in the face.
That is anecdotal.
I just wish to raise a little awareness. That is the t***h.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

emarine wrote:

Very true... but this was before the possibility of mans impact on warming... we only know that Co2 is now off the chart compared to the last 400,000 years from sampling... I think we should move forward with caution reducing Co2 where possible without massive economic impact... its foolish to ignore it...

That's the key to this isn't it. And in the Paris accord we were to give a ton of cash to others with little to no accounting for what it was to be used for. But it's no so much off the chart. The highest measured was 412 ppm I think. It was way, way higher DURING the last ice age.