Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14745
    08 Dec '18 10:33
    @wolfgang59 said
    wtf?
    Do you know what logic is?
    He is blaming global warming for extinctions when GW has nothing to do with it.

    Is that logical?
  2. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7460
    09 Dec '18 17:07
    @metal-brain said
    It just goes to show that nature is and always has been the main source of climate change and man cannot cause extinctions on a scale even close to nature with CO2 emissions alone.
    I don't understand this argument, which implies that we have tried this experiment before. Is there a historical precedent for what we are now doing to our climate? When before in the history of the world has man dug up all the bones and organic matter of dead animals and systematically burned them on a global scale?
  3. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14745
    09 Dec '18 18:37
    @wildgrass said
    I don't understand this argument, which implies that we have tried this experiment before. Is there a historical precedent for what we are now doing to our climate? When before in the history of the world has man dug up all the bones and organic matter of dead animals and systematically burned them on a global scale?
    Co2 levels are 400 ppm. That is a very small amount. More or less 0.025%
    That is about the same as the Pliocene Epoch and that was a lot warmer than today. It clearly was not because of CO2 levels. There is no evidence 400 ppm causes much warming in the atmosphere. There is no historical precedent to conclude that.
  4. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7460
    10 Dec '18 16:40
    @metal-brain said
    Co2 levels are 400 ppm. That is a very small amount. More or less 0.025%
    That is about the same as the Pliocene Epoch and that was a lot warmer than today. It clearly was not because of CO2 levels. There is no evidence 400 ppm causes much warming in the atmosphere. There is no historical precedent to conclude that.
    I don't think the pliocene data indicates what you are saying regarding CO2 and climate. An epoch is a really long time, way longer that we have been tracking the effects of greenhouse gases on warming and the resolution comes in multi-thousand year windows. Can ice cores be resolved to within a few hundred years or decades?

    But regardless, even if we take your statement that 400 ppm CO2 is inconsequential to keeping our planet warm as fact, your prior statement that man cannot cause climate change because he has not previously done so remains nonsense. In fact, before now man has not tried.
  5. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14745
    11 Dec '18 08:02
    @wildgrass said
    I don't think the pliocene data indicates what you are saying regarding CO2 and climate. An epoch is a really long time, way longer that we have been tracking the effects of greenhouse gases on warming and the resolution comes in multi-thousand year windows. Can ice cores be resolved to within a few hundred years or decades?

    But regardless, even if we take your statement ...[text shortened]... hange because he has not previously done so remains nonsense. In fact, before now man has not tried.
    "your prior statement that man cannot cause climate change because he has not previously done so remains nonsense."

    False! I never said that. You need to copy and paste my quotes since you are too resentful to get them right.

    "Can ice cores be resolved to within a few hundred years or decades?"

    What ice cores? You need to be specific. I cannot read your mind.
  6. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80056
    11 Dec '18 13:01
    @metal-brain said
    "your prior statement that man cannot cause climate change because he has not previously done so remains nonsense."

    False! I never said that. You need to copy and paste my quotes since you are too resentful to get them right.

    "Can ice cores be resolved to within a few hundred years or decades?"

    What ice cores? You need to be specific. I cannot read your mind.
    I assume wildgrass is referring to this post, the tenth one on the previous page:
    It just goes to show that nature is and always has been the main source of climate change and man cannot cause extinctions on a scale even close to nature with CO2 emissions alone.
    The article is ridiculous to assert we are doing the same thing. Just silly.
  7. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14745
    12 Dec '18 20:38
    @deepthought said
    I assume wildgrass is referring to this post, the tenth one on the previous page:
    It just goes to show that nature is and always has been the main source of climate change and man cannot cause extinctions on a scale even close to nature with CO2 emissions alone.
    The article is ridiculous to assert we are doing the same thing. Just silly.
    That does not say what wildgrass claimed. He misquoted me as always.
  8. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7460
    14 Dec '18 17:261 edit
    @metal-brain said
    That does not say what wildgrass claimed. He misquoted me as always.
    Please restate your comment regarding what man can and cannot do to our climate, and how you know these things so definitively. I must have been confused by the compound sentence.
  9. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14745
    14 Dec '18 20:27
    @wildgrass said
    Please restate your comment regarding what man can and cannot do to our climate, and how you know these things so definitively. I must have been confused by the compound sentence.
    Which comment? You are the one who took issue with it. Quote me, but copy and paste it from an actual quote. Don't make crap up as you go along.
Back to Top