Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

For those playing at home.

Ican claimed that CO2 was higher when humans roamed the planet.
I pointed out that CO2 has NOT been higher during that time period and provided a graph of ice core data showing CO2 for the last 400,000 years.
humans have existed as a species for approximately 200,000 years.

genoves thinks humans existed during the Jurassic 200 million years ago.

Your comments are rather stupid, aren't they genoves?

parados wrote:

For those playing at home.

Ican claimed that CO2 was higher when humans roamed the planet.
I pointed out that CO2 has NOT been higher during that time period and provided a graph of ice core data showing CO2 for the last 400,000 years.
humans have existed as a species for approximately 200,000 years.

genoves thinks humans existed during the Jurassic 200 million years ago.

Your comments are rather stupid, aren't they genoves?

Parados, you may wish to do a bit more research. First of all, we don't know for sure, and second of all, discoveries up to 2 million years and older have been made, with similarities to modern man.

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/klmno/leakey_mary.html

So what if they used fire, cyclops, what does that have to do with this? Whether they used fire or not, they didn't all die, apparently, due to CO2.

I thought the debate was about whether we knew that there had never been levels of CO2 higher than recently, during humanoid history. Ice core data history was cited for the last thousands of years, and the argument was made that we do not know that humans endured higher CO2 during those thousands of years, and I simply point out that human history may in fact go back before ice core data, so we may in fact not know everything about CO2 during human history.

That seems like splitting hairs, cyclops, considering the similarities of our physical ability to live, lungs, etc., don't you think? Just guessing, but this guess is as good as yours, I think if animals were able to live with thousands of ppm CO2, I imagine humans would have been able to as well. After all, it is so miniscule as to seem to be insignificant. You are comparing one teaspoonful of something in a lake vs a few more. CO2 makes up way less than 1/10 of one percent, so even if it triples, it would still be approximately a miniscule 1/10 of one percent.

And even if they weren't exactly like modern humans, and even if you consider animals, are you going to claim animals can live just fine while high CO2 will kill humans? That seems like a stupid assumption.

It is a stupid assumption. Why did YOU make it? Or did you listen to someone else that made that argument?

I never said higher Co2 will kill humans. I only stated that CO2 has NOT been this high while humans existed.

TWo marine geologists, John Kraft and Rhoads Fairbridge had, in the late 1970's predicted a global sea level rise that ,since new elements of isostacy and continental movement were factored in, have since reduced their own (then) famous curves significantly. Much of these predictions of water temps and sea level elevations are WAG's at best, and downright fraudulent at worst. The rush to publish a lot of crap data is where weve gotten into a lot of messes with the entire global warming mantra. Axial precession, change in sol,ar luminosity, release of continental heat sinks and the various planetary cycles havent even been factored accurately into the equation and still many insist that global warming is human induced and weve gotta curtail all commerce to stem it.
Jeez, Im sorry, I try to be open minded about a lot but Im still not seeing the relationship even of CO2 as a "causitive element" in climate hange. ALl Im seeing in the paleoclimate data is that CO2 is a "following" indicator. (temperatures change, then CO2 is released)

Thank you for showing, once again, high CO2 means high temperature.

Re: ican711nm (Post 3567205)
and, Ican, if, as the left wingsays,co2 in the atmosphere should be lessened, can it be done?

Perhaps I miss your point, but it seemed to me that your argument that CO2 has maybe not been this high since humans inhabited the earth - and I don't know that you know that - implicates a conclusion. I don't see why it does.

And I pointed out that humans or ancestral humans probably lived much before what you asserted, so you are coming to lots of conclusions that are simply unsupported by any evidence.