Join the new world

Its so Hot in here! http://tinyurl.com/kvlr5xn

[removed]

I never worried about climate. They are just words in the wind.

How do they scientifically measure the CO2 millions of years ago?

I recommend Power pack!

This is a good question its called carbon dating and they have clean samples from deep ice cores.

You know carbon dating... its when one carbon asks another carbon out for dinner and a movie.. and maybe a lil sumpin sumpin later.

So basically they can say how the climate was on the South pole, where they take all the samples.

Yes there are two poles. and they also use carbon dating on fossils and earth sediment.

Carbon dating is useful, but in only provide info for more recent (geologically speaking) times in the best cases till about 65-70 000 years ago tops.

For the earlier geological periods, the most common way for determining the CO2 concentrationsis to analyze the amount of calcium carbonate (limestone) and strontium carbonate that formed in that period. The specific amount of those 2 can give, relatively precise (cause you have to factor in the different life forms living at the period) information about the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

These layers are usually dated by other radiometric (measuring the radioactive decay of certain radioactive impurities in the rock) techniques like Uranium -> Lead dating or Potassium ->Argon dating.

So answer me this... if we reduce Co2 emissions to zero how will we ever be able to do carbon dating again?

And i doubt that the world needs more radio active elements.

At first I thought I won't answer this cause its a troll question, BUT just in case:

The sole purpose of the CO2 in the atmosphere is not to provide material for carbon dating.

No scientist, at least the sane ones, is proposing reducing the CO2 levels to zero. The main goal is to reduce some of the CO2 to about pre-industrial levels and modifying our economy, production and way of life in a way that reduces the CO2 emissions to some adequate level.

Why fix something that is not broken? there are other factors besides CO2 creating heat.

and i did not say the sole purpose of CO2 was carbon dating it has MANY MANY uses to many to list witch is another reason why we should not be looking to eliminate any of it.

So if I understand correctly, you are suggesting everyone buy a big car, a knee brace and put balloons down the back of their pants?

Oh, I didn't actually read any of the article. Obviously.

...........
...................__
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(

BROFISTING FOR DIO
DIO FOR BROFISTING

No as cars put out more pollution than just carbon dioxide such as oil and fuel solvents that are unhealthy to the human immune system. im still hoping for hydrogen fuel cell cars that separate hydrogen and oxygen from water.

They have the technology but its really cheap and they cant make too much money from it so they arent releasing it.

It's more a problem that mobile vehicles under the control of ordinary people have an explosive gas on board. Been tried before, with mixed results (ref: Hindenburg airship)

Hydrogen tech is cool, but if you ask me I see the future a bit different.

Easily accessible fusion reactors worldwide -> clean and cheap electricity worldwide -> electrical cars and other transportation devices.

So!

eWorld climate fluctuations are determined by the variations in Plato's revenues

Nah man, everyone knows eworld climate change is caused by cow farts

cow farts consist of mainly methane and is 10x worse than carbon dioxide i may one day be ok with a methane tax as it is mostly cause by large blooms of sea bacteria that grow from imbalances in the sea and are most likely because of industrial pollution.

However they should put this tax on the polluters not on the citizens witch would make them more responsible and to try and solve this problem by improving there manufacturing Technic to cut there cost in this area thereby efficiently eliminating the problem.

gay wat hm ok

I think she just got more than an idea...

Right on... without the gay because gay is not the building blocks to life.

sorry i was in a hurry and that was the best butt i could find at the moment.

Better?

FOR SURE 😁)

Am I wrong or you changed the picture?

Your not wrong. wish i got more questions on this article.

Exchanging Gold for Gold. Good rate. PM me if interested. I cannot give more detais due to game rules

Exchanging gold for gold?

wat.

This article is filled with so many falsehoods and misunderstandings that I don't even know where to start correcting you...

We all have to start somewhere. you dident even try.

Because I'm tired of people that are anti-science and refuses to face reality.

But very well, considering how wrong this article is, I have decided to tackle the first 3 "facts" (rea😛 "alternative facts").

1: Plants are NOT the only creators of oxygen.
2: Incorrect. There exists anaerobic life. Unless perhaps if you are referring to the chemical element itself, as that particular atom is used a lot in nature, e.g. in glucose and water.
3: If you think this one is true, then take a look at Venus. (SPOILER: Mercury is closer to the sun than Venus is, yet Venus is hotter due to the massive amount of CO2, a greenhouse gas, present on Venus).

These 3 "alternative facts" are sadly not the only "alternative facts" in the article, but they are the only ones I can be bothered to deal with right now.

As i stated below i did not discount bacteria they are the last to die off without a host. but even bacteria have the ability to create there own stabilized environment.

and venus is not hot because of the CO2 but more likely because of the sulphuric acid environment.

and they are not alternative facts i agree with them. they have nothing to do with the fact that CO2 is not causing our planet to get hotter heat is trapped by our atmosphere because of the SUN. it is the same effect as your car getting hotter on a hot day. it has nothing to do with increased CO2 in your car...

The last data about the chemical composition of Venus's atmosphere I can by was a few years ago, so I might be a bit outdated, BUT as far as I remember it was about 96% CO2, 3%N and the remaining 1% is others. The sulfuric acid clouds are part of that 1%.

I agree that Methane and SO2 are far more potent green-house gases, but you can't underestimate the role of the CO2, ESPECIALLY on Venus.

i stated this below that composition is inaccurate as even scientists can not see below a certain point they have said as much...

Because its not Carbon Dioxide. its carbon monoxide that is more abundant in the atmosphere carbon monoxide is created by the dissociation of carbon dioxide by uv rays from the SUN.

Also Sulfur clouds generate electrical discharge creating even more heat trapped in the atmosphere.

"more likely because of the sulphuric acid environment." no, there is no "more likely". The scientific community has known for many decades what a greenhouse gas is, and that CO2 is one of them. Venus has a massive amount of CO2, and since we know that CO2 prevents heat from escaping a planet, we know the reason why the planet is hotter than Mercury (and Earth for that matter), which has little CO2 in comparison. Any respectable, objective astronomer or scientist studying climate change will tell you the same. Are you saying the global scientific community is lying?

Agreeing with "alternative facts" does not make them real. Science doesn't work like that. Science is about finding an objective truth. Disagreeing that gravity is real, for example, won't make it go away.

There is a vast difference between a car and a planet's climate. You might as well compare the ocean to a glass of water.

Try this experiment: acquire two identical cars. One black and one white. Now place them outside in the sun during a particularly hot day. After a few hours, measure their temperature. If they differ, there must be a good reason why. The sun gives both of them equally much heat so it can't be the sun's fault if one is hotter than the other. (SPOILER ALERT: the black car is hotter than the white car).

That experiment can, in a way, be compared to gases in the atmosphere. Some gases trap heat (greenhouse gases) in the form of thermal infrared radiation, while others don't. Well, that's just a very basic and simple explanation. The same is the case with the two cars. A white car reflects more of the incoming sunlight than a black car does, resulting in a cooler car, while a black car "traps" more heat, becoming hotter than a white car. Since we know what a greenhouse gas is, and that CO2 is one, we can theoretically claim that more CO2 = more trapped heat. And that's what observations show too; as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, so has the global temperature.

My whole point is the ozone traps heat in the atmosphere its like a big sheet of glass and the reason a black car is hotter than a white one is that black absorbs heat and white reflects it.

And that chart up there was done by your "scientists" and there is no correlation between CO2 and earths temperatures. Co2 is sequestered buy all the biological organisms on this planet (and earth itself in soil and the oceans) and is needed for its function the more the better. If we have enough maybe our rain forests will grow back. i would never attempt to argue this about any other molecule but CO2 it absolutely innocent in all your guys accusations of it being bad. quit picking on Co2 you molecular racists!... lol

Oh and yes i am blatantly calling them liers because they ADMITTED to LIEING when they falsified data!

@Gabz this will be my last comment, cause I'm tired

There's no good and bad molecules. We, the humans, invented good and bad. Nature is neither good not bad.

As for the role of CO2 in the rising of the Earth's average temperature - pls read a bit more scientific papers. But when you do so, check if they are peer-reviewed. Every reputable result should be backed by at least 3 independent groups of scientists to be valid, at least as far as I am concerned.

Again, NO sane scientist will dispute the importance of the CO2 for the life on Earth. But the balance is important - too much of it - you get Venus like scenario. Too little - you get Mark Watney's frozen potatoes.
When we disrupt the balance, and we do so quite rapidly, usually bad or not so pleasant things happen. Even if we were not cutting down trees like crazy, I doubt the ability of the plant to utilize CO2 will be enough, to account for all the CO2 we put in the atmosphere.

i understand that you are tired of this but i dont understand why you keep posting we are arguing the same point... and to be honest i dont believe in a peer review process it has turned into a pay for play scenario.

Funny that you doubt the ability of the planet to take care of itself the biggest problem or human cause of this problem is us cutting down the only thing giving us life. Yet you and all others that comment say the earth was here before us and will be long after?? hmm cognitive dissonance.

I don't think you know what peer-reviewing something means, because if you don't believe in peer-reviewing when talking about scientific papers you may as well not believe in anything everyone else knows is real. Do you also believe the moon is made of cheese, the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that 2+2=5?

"Yet you and all others that comment say the earth was here before us and will be long after?? hmm cognitive dissonance." there is no cognitive dissonance here. Human civilization and a lot of life is at stake, but not all life, much less the planet itself. What we are doing is changing the global climate, but just as has happened in the past, life will adapt, albeit with great losses to many species. The rate of adaptation is the problem. Earth life can adapt to a changing climate if it happens over a VERY long time period. What humans have done is changing the climate over a VERY short time period. That's the problem, and if you look at Earth's global temperatures in its history, you will find temperatures to be fairly stable, only changing a little at a time, until we reach the 20th century, where it suddenly goes way up.

If you read about, say, the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, you will find that it took life millions of years to recover from an extinction event that took much less time to occur. The same will be the case with global warming and subsequent climate change. Some life will go on, but a great majority of it will go extinct or suffer major damage that will take a really long time to recover from. The most probable fate for humanity is the latter. Humanity will most likely survive, but we should expect problems like severe droughts, flooding, changed weather patterns and other bad things, which will decimate the world economy and force us to change our way of life whether we want to or not.

And no, there is no falsifying of data. That's a big lie on your part. You have more likely than not, misinterpreted the data.

Your a fool if you dont think the moon is Cheese! have you been there? has anyone? prove it!

I personally haven't gone to the moon, but some astronauts, like Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong, have. I don't really need to prove the moon landings as there exists a lot of proof already, probably the most obvious ones being photographs, which can be found by typing in "apollo moon photos" on google. Moon samples confirm the moon is not made of cheese. The Bad Astronomer and skeptic scientist, Phil Plait, has written about a tv program called "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" and debunked pretty much everything conspiracy theorists said regarding the moon landings. You can find what he has written here:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

im glad you have so much FAITH in science. never doing anything for yourself must be comforting.

Again, science isn't about faith, it's about knowing. What do you mean by never doing anything for myself?