Chuck explain?

[agstar77]

Co2 is their enemy because it makes the earth more lush and abundant. That doesn't fit their agenda. Billy Gates is literally attempting to blot out the sun with nanoparticles released into the upper atmosphere.

That is fine if plants have moisture to go with the CO2.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck doesn't explain. You need to understand a topic in order to explain it. Chuck will regurgitate the prechewed pablum that the science denier websites present just for such an occasion. But ask him to paraphrase in his own words and all he will come up with is to call you a flat earther.

He is however very good at belittling, lecturing, name calling, deflecting, subject changing. and of course finding irrelevant cut and paste that he still doesn't understand, but hopes they are on topic.

Of course, he could always prove me wrong. Here is a paper ( no paywall) that indicates there is no positive corellation between temperature and CO2. Please read and explain in your own words where you disagree with the author.

the most striking observation from the visual comparison is the "apparent dissociation and even an antiphasic relationship" among the two variables.... do not appear qualitatively, at least, to bear any definitive relationship with fluctuations in the atmospheric concentration of CO2" (emphasis added), (5) "regression of linearly-detrended temperature proxies against atmospheric CO2 concentration proxy data reveals a weak but discernible negative correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature," and (6) "the percent of variance in temperature that can be explained by variance in atmospheric CO2 concentration, or conversely, R2 × 100, is 3.6%, [indicating that] more than 95% of the variance in temperature is explained by unidentified variables other than the atmospheric concentration of CO2."

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/pdf https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/pdf

[AlbertaFarmer5]

That is fine if plants have moisture to go with the CO2.

Even better news. increased CO2 also significantly reduces plants ( except C4 plants) water needs, making them much more drought tolerant. You don't even need to increase the moisture to see the benefits of increased CO2. You could even decrease it and still see large benefits.

Miraculous little molecule.

[sumdumguy]

Ottawa announces $100,000,000 to Montreal for 100 jobs. Yep $1,000,000 per job building car batteries. Tax incentives are grants to oil industry but direct-deposit to green BS is not a subsidy?

[dmlfarmer]

Very nice cut and paste chuck.

Why are our levels right now the lowest level since the great ice age yet it’s a problem now.

They are not at the lowest level since the last ice age or in the history of the world as you claim. In fact they are more than double the concentration at their low point of the last glaciation period. And they are more than 1/3 higher than the highest concentration reached over the last 7 glaciation periods.

The last time glaciers covered North America (ending about 11,000 years ago) ice core samples in Antarctica showed CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere at 180ppm. The highest CO2 levels reached before 1950 and in the last 800,000 years (again based on ice core data) in which time there were repeated glaciations on earth was 300ppm. Today the CO2 concentration is about 415 ppm.

[SASKFARMER]

So if your chart is true we should be warming at such a rate and rain events would be more as we become the tropics.

But it’s not.

Also why only play with number for the last 50 years and not look at the big picture.

[dmlfarmer]

So if your chart is true we should be warming at such a rate and rain events would be more as we become the tropics.

But it’s not.

Also why only play with number for the last 50 years and not look at the big picture.

The chart I posted is only about CO2 concentrations and extends not for just 50 years but 800,000 years and disproves you claims about current CO2 levels. Nor is the chart or am I making any claims about the correlation of CO2 levels and temperature or precipitation, it only addresses CO2 levels. The only question that this chart should bring up is what has happened in the last century and a half which has changed the cycle of CO2 concentrations that has been relatively stable over the last 800,000 years.

[Hamloc]

They are not at the lowest level since the last ice age or in the history of the world as you claim. In fact they are more than double the concentration at their low point of the last glaciation period. And they are more than 1/3 higher than the highest concentration reached over the last 7 glaciation periods.

The last time glaciers covered North America (ending about 11,000 years ago) ice core samples in Antarctica showed CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere at 180ppm. The highest CO2 levels reached before 1950 and in the last 800,000 years (again based on ice core data) in which time there were repeated glaciations on earth was 300ppm. Today the CO2 concentration is about 415 ppm.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7653[/ATTACH]

If you looked at the initial chart you would see it goes back much farther than 800000 years.

[SASKFARMER]

They love picking and choosing to fit the narrative. Sad science can prove back millions of years they don’t look at that.

[dmlfarmer]

If you looked at the initial chart you would see it goes back much farther than 800000 years.

So what? SF3 claimed we are at the lowest point in the history of the world for CO2 and I presented data showing it is the highest it has been in 800,000 years by actual measurements. I could have provided this to refute his claim: "Widespread forests slowly draw in massive amounts of CO2, gradually lowering the level of atmospheric CO2 from 650 ppmv down to around 100 ppmv during the Miocene." (23 million years ago) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale#:~:text=The%20geologic%20time% 20scale%20(%20GTS)%20is%20a,timing%20and%20relatio nships%20of%20events%20in%20geologic%20history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale#:~:text=The%20geologic%20time% 20scale%20(%20GTS)%20is%20a,timing%20and%20relatio nships%20of%20events%20in%20geologic%20history.
The Miocene epoch marked a CO2 level 1/4 of today's level but it it irrelevant comparison because there were no humans around then - homo sapiens first appeared around 800,000 years ago. Land masses were different back then too because of continental drift so ocean currents were different. There was a time when the earth was molten, no oxygen, and more methane as the atmosphere too. Again so what?

I ask you too why for the entire period humanoids walked the earth has CO2 levels been consistantly cyclical and never exceeding 300ppm until a century and a half ago. What and why the change that has boosted CO2 levels by 1/3 higher than seen in 800,000 years?