quote:
> disregard evidence > disregard expert opinion Delusional. > accuse scientists of collaborative liberal conspiracy Paranoia. Y'all are flat-earthers

You've still never answered my main question.

Every climate scientist agrees that many times in Earth's past, greenhouse gas levels were significantly higher and more concentrated than they are now. And yet, during those times, we had many periods of extreme cooling and extreme warming.

What is your explaination for how we had over 7,000 ppmv of CO2, and yet had millions of years of ice age during that time?

How is 400 ppmv supposed to mean anything when we had millions of years of consistent freezing climate with over 7,000 ppmv?

You won't be able to answer that question and explain it away, because your group of super scientists can't even answer or explain that conundrum away.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by greygatch

Member since Sep 2013

1159 posts

Posted on 1/6/14 at 11:32 pm to BeefDawg

Because it was at 7,000ppm prior to the Cambrian explosion. Prior to most plants and flowers, the very things that eat CO2.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by davesdawgs

Georgia - Class of '75

Member since Oct 2008

20307 posts

Posted on 1/7/14 at 5:00 pm to BeefDawg

quote:
quote:
> disregard evidence > disregard expert opinion Delusional. > accuse scientists of collaborative liberal conspiracy Paranoia. Y'all are flat-earthers

You've still never answered my main question.

Every climate scientist agrees that many times in Earth's past, greenhouse gas levels were significantly higher and more concentrated than they are now. And yet, during those times, we had many periods of extreme cooling and extreme warming.

What is your explaination for how we had over 7,000 ppmv of CO2, and yet had millions of years of ice age during that time?

How is 400 ppmv supposed to mean anything when we had millions of years of consistent freezing climate with over 7,000 ppmv?

It doesn't and never mind that there we no human beings during those periods producing CO2.