The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Over earth's history the ocean has spent plenty of time well above current CO2 levels then compared to "when we arrived".
What's going to happen? Likely nothing since there have been way higher levels of CO2 in the past.
So again, I find nothing to panic about.

You people can panic all you want, I find it highly entertaining.

Sure buddy...

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

While ongoing ocean acidification is at least partially anthropogenic in origin, it has occurred previously in Earth's history.[17] The most notable example is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM),[18] which occurred approximately 56 million years ago when massive amounts of carbon entered the ocean and atmosphere, and led to the dissolution of carbonate sediments in all ocean basins.

Ocean acidification has been compared to anthropogenic climate change and called the "evil twin of global warming"[19][20][21][22][23] and "the other CO2 problem".[20][22][24]

Originally Posted by wikipedia:PETM

The associated period of massive carbon injection into the atmosphere has been estimated to have lasted no longer than 20,000 years. The entire warm period lasted for about 200,000 years. Global temperatures increased by 5–8 °C.[3] The carbon dioxide was likely released in two pulses, the first lasting less than 2,000 years. Such a repeated carbon release is in line with current global warming.[2] A main difference is that during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, the planet was essentially ice-free.[4] However, the amount of released carbon, according to a recent study, suggest a modest 0.2 gigatonnes per year (at peaks 0.58 gigatonnes); humans today add about 10 gigatonnes per year.[5][6]

Rest assured, we only inject 50 times as much carbon as what caused the mass extinction 56 million years ago.
Highly entertaining. I wonder what else entertains you.

[Fat Charlie]

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Sure buddy...


Rest assured, we only inject 50 times as much carbon as what caused the mass extinction 56 million years ago.
Highly entertaining. I wonder what else entertains you.

Only cherry pick the last 20,000 years of CO2 levels. CO2 levels have been much higher in the padt and the world didn't end.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by freebeard

'Past Performance Does Not Guarantee Future Results.'

Funny how that seems to only work when it comes "to man made global warming". Then they use the opposite approach to literally everything else involving the scientific method.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Only cherry pick the last 20,000 years of CO2 levels. CO2 levels have been much higher in the padt and the world didn't end.

The world didn't end, but many species did. No ice at all anywhere on the planet.

You make claims without reference whatsoever, and if I try to fact check them and find they don't prove your point but rather show that a much slower insertion of carbon can cause 200.000 years of iceless heating that is 'cherry picking'?

I don't like the way you discuss.
But it was useful, as it forced me to check out the PETM event.
Now I know carbon emission is even more dangerous than I feared.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Funny how that seems to only work when it comes "to man made global warming". Then they use the opposite approach to literally everything else involving the scientific method.

Please give examples.

The world ended for the dinosaurs, but it is cool, I would hate to run over a brontosaurus, and um... what would power my car?

Actually... wouldn't we have greater petroleum reserves as more dinosaurs lived and died in the subsequent millions of years?

[freebeard]

No.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=deep%20hot%20abiotic%20oil

[niky]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

And the only constant is, they still get it wrong.

To ask for 100% accuracy is foolhardy.

Science teaches us 100% accuracy is impossible.

But if I had to pick the side that was less wrong, I'd pick the one that actually continuously refines their models to take everything into account.

Because they do, whether you believe they do or not.

Originally Posted by aerohead

Picture in your mind, 30,000 years worth of 100-year-old oak forest in a single bonfire.That's a snapshot of anthropogenic carbon.

Along with hundreds of billions of tons of coal and oil... Eek.

Originally Posted by freebeard

No.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=deep%20hot%20abiotic%20oil

There's a reason it is a fringe theory.

Also, diamonds form abiotically, but we don't have billions of tons of commercially-extractable diamonds under our feet.

Alsox2, in relation to that, it is likely more oil deposits exist than we have ever used. Or ever will use. Because, y'know, we can't afford to dig it all up due to EROI concerns.

Originally Posted by sendler

New Nate Hagens (forward thinker) video.
.
https://youtu.be/rrN0lbbSVOA
.
compare and contrast to the "Superheroes" video
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg
.

Awesome talk.

[oil pan 4]

Science is based on independently reproducible results.

Scientific laws display 100% accuracy, that's why it's a law, it always works, 100% of the time and there is no counter argument that isn't proved wrong 100% of the time.
If the science only works 97% or 99% of the time, or there is counter arguments that can not be absolutely disproven all of the time then the little bit of science in question is still a theory.
But I see this a lot, global warming believers and bible thumpers not grasping how basic science works or is applied.
Scientific laws are the only settled science, but even they can be challenged.

Originally Posted by niky

To ask for 100% accuracy is foolhardy.

Science teaches us 100% accuracy is impossible.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Which law of science are you referring to as the one that proves the atmosphere warms when certain gas levels are increased?

John Tyndall showed this way back in 1859:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/

The US Air Force did research at Hanscom (in the 1950's?) on greenhouse gases, when they worked on heat seeking missiles.

This is basic chemistry and spectroscopy. It is used in astrophysics, and many other areas of scientific study.