Present VS past CO-2/Temp levels more to it than just numbers

Just a small sample of this fact based look at CO2 levels and how ice cores are used to show historic levels of the gas and how they are more than likely not accurate. Pressures that old ice samples are exposed to can dissolve CO2 into surrounding ice, making the ice cores not reliable.

Although the ice core record represents a very nice overall view of temperature and CO2 trends over many thousands of years, their reliability for resolving details over timescales of decades-- or in some cases several centuries-- is limited. Nonethess, these data are used as the principle evidence to show that CO2 levels in excess of 300 parts per million are unprecedented in all of human history and a cause for concern.

www.geocraft.com...

Of course the rising and receding CO2 levels are often sited as "never" being this high. That doesn't seem to be the truth either.

www.geocraft.com...

The climate seems to be used as both a money maker and a tool of division. Scientists are in the infancy of understanding all the components that are in play. It seems to have an ebb and flow to it.

a reply to: atsgrounded

Of course the rising and receding CO2 levels are often sited as "never" being this high.

Cited by whom?

It seems to have an ebb and flow to it.

Yes. The thing is, rising CO2 levels seem to be the primary cause of the current warming trend.

a reply to: Phage

Carbon Dioxide Levels Reach Record High in Earth’s Atmosphere
www.newsweek.com...

a reply to: Phage

Cited by whom?

The thing is, rising CO2 levels seem to be the primary cause of the current warming trend.

The climate seems to be used as both a money maker and a tool of division.

I’ve heard this before: there’s a ton of money in a nonexistent scheme...or are you referring to the swampiness of grant writing?

Where is this money-making scheme headquartered? I’ve always got a resume handy.
And they should probably get the memo: Avg Cost of Electricity Barely Keeps Up with Inflation — US 2008 - 2017

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype
www.forbes.com...

Five Ways We Know Al Gore's Been Running A Global Warming Racket
www.investors.com...

originally posted by: atsgrounded
a reply to: Phage

Carbon Dioxide Levels Reach Record High in Earth’s Atmosphere
www.newsweek.com...

Yes. That source:

Data gathered from ice cores containing ancient air bubbles reveal CO2 levels from the last 800,000 years.

originally posted by: atsgrounded
a reply to: Phage

Cited by whom?

The thing is, rising CO2 levels seem to be the primary cause of the current warming trend.

Yes.


Stomata proxies are known to have high levels of uncertainty. But when that is taken into account:

The sharp rise in the stomata-based CO2 curve (Fig. 4.5A) after 1850 AD corresponds excel-lently to the industrial CO2 increase apparent in instrumental records (Keeling and Whorf,2002) and shallow ice-cores (Neftel et al., 1985). This correspondence corroborates the
reliability of the reconstruction. Mean pre-industrial CO2 values are simular to those meas-ured in Antarctic ice-cores (Etheridge et al., 1996; Indermühle, 1999a).

dspace.library.uu.nl...

a reply to: atsgrounded

A leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated...

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Why does the left, who seem to hate anything that has to do with a major company that makes money, give a pass to what seems to be a global scam to just redistribute money?

Oh right... making the whole globe equally poor is the primary means to establishing a global tolitarian government.

/facepalm

a reply to: Lumenari

Edenhoffer was talking about a policy (global trading) which does not exist.

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capital basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

But there still doesn't seem to be any such trading program in the works, after what? Eight years?

He was saying that such a global environmental policy, by its very nature, becomes economic in nature but not because that is the intent (that's why he said "de facto"). And he was right, coal and oil companies do not want their enormous profits reduced (you didn't bold that part). They're fighting it still, tooth and nail.

He was also right that effective climate policy goes far beyond localized environmental regulation.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: atsgrounded

A leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated...

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Why does the left, who seem to hate anything that has to do with a major company that makes money, give a pass to what seems to be a global scam to just redistribute money?

Oh right... making the whole globe equally poor is the primary means to establishing a global tolitarian government.

/facepalm

We have 20+ universities in the UK with arts courses dedicated to the global impact of climate change. Not one anticipated the reservoirs would run low, that train tracks would buckle, that underground tube stations would become a health risk due to heat or that farmers would risk losing their crops.

a reply to: Phage

He was talking expressly about the fact that the main objective of this scheme was income redistribution from the West to the third world and his words "we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.....This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."

Another idiotic UN failure - ABOLISH THE UN !

They didn't think about farmers loosing crops? Maybe there should be 25+ universities studying it.

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: atsgrounded

A leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated...

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Why does the left, who seem to hate anything that has to do with a major company that makes money, give a pass to what seems to be a global scam to just redistribute money?

Oh right... making the whole globe equally poor is the primary means to establishing a global tolitarian government.

/facepalm

We have 20+ universities in the UK with arts courses dedicated to the global impact of climate change. Not one anticipated the reservoirs would run low, that train tracks would buckle, that underground tube stations would become a health risk due to heat or that farmers would risk losing their crops.

a reply to: M5xaz

Do you know what "de facto" means? It means something that happens even if it was not intended. The intent of a global carbon trading plan would be to reduce emissions (like SO2 trading did in North America, quite effectively). Another result would be that oil and coal would not be as profitable as they now are. Saudi Arabia would not be as wealthy as it is and Africa, with other resources, could become more wealthy. De facto, a result, in fact not intent.

And yes, a global climate policy has little to do with local environmental policy (like weather is different from climate) and there is no global carbon trading plan.

a reply to: atsgrounded

At least you delivered something — albeit damn near antiquated in the Forbes piece and a total drive-by, opinion piece in whatever the second was. Still, where’s the beef? Where are these anti-science, carbon-hating cash machines?? I want one!

But, hey, you got several stars — the collective ignorance is strong.

Come at, bro/gal — with a real money-making scheme.

a reply to: Phage

No, you are wrong

de fac·to
ˌdā ˈfaktō/Submit
adverb
1.in fact, or in effect, whether by right or not.
E.g. whether intentional or not

Edenhofer makes it quite clear that it IS intentional
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost NOTHING TO DO with environmental policy anymore"

Africa would become wealthier only by stealing green tax money from Western democracies.
Nobody ever got rich by taxes/socialist welfare.

The way to wealth is the hard work way of the Western capitalist system, as proven by rapid growth rates in all countries that correctly applied it.

a reply to: M5xaz

E.g. whether intentional or not

Is different than:

It means something that happens even if it was not intended.

?

And if you’re gonna try and slam the grammar hammer, you may want to just leave it at “whether”, the “or not” is redundant.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat


"Intent" is clear from EDENHOFER's own writing when he stated:
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost NOTHING TO DO with environmental policy anymore"

Google "nothing to do with".

You self describe yourself as BEEFNOMEAT/Beef with no meat - I could not agree more...

You might want to take a course in reading comprehension.

The whole carbon thing is a scam, spend megabucks to lower carbon emmissions and ignore the destruction of the environmental properties that help to repair the carbon problem. We need to build things to last, not make things that get tossed out in a few years. That and stopping the waste of our resources would be enough to help repair our environment. Also we should really examine the unnatural chemistry being dumped into our environment that dampens the ability of our ecosystem to repair itself. Carbon is not even a quarter of the problem..

originally posted by: atsgrounded
They didn't think about farmers loosing crops? Maybe there should be 25+ universities studying it.

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: atsgrounded

A leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated...

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Why does the left, who seem to hate anything that has to do with a major company that makes money, give a pass to what seems to be a global scam to just redistribute money?

Oh right... making the whole globe equally poor is the primary means to establishing a global tolitarian government.

/facepalm

We have 20+ universities in the UK with arts courses dedicated to the global impact of climate change. Not one anticipated the reservoirs would run low, that train tracks would buckle, that underground tube stations would become a health risk due to heat or that farmers would risk losing their crops.

They are studying the global impact on developing world countries, not what happens to Europe or the UK farmers.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

At the state... via carbon credits. It's already happening in California. We have to ensure we don't allow this B.S. to spread.

That's not including individuals like Al Gore who have cashed in on the hysteria...

Jaden