Human carbon release rate is unprecedented in the past 66 million years of Earth's history

a reply to: neo96

I particularly liked the part in the OP where it said HUMANS are releasing carbon 10 times faster than anything in the past 60million years.
I didnt even bother reading the rest.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Why is that? They are obviously not talking about humans exhaling. What do you mean exactly.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Most probably didn't even read the article before attacking it. You shouldn't expect any reasoned response from them, but you can be sure they have plenty of Heartland institute approved BS to spew.

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Why is that? They are obviously not talking about humans exhaling. What do you mean exactly.

I'm guessing the mere mention of 10 times faster, humans, anything else in history is enough for some?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Most probably didn't even read the article before making attacking it. You shouldn't expect any reasoned response from them, but you can be sure they have plenty of Heartland institute approved BS to spew.

Talking about spewing BS when your intro to this thread was a baseless assumption to bolster your narrative?

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: neo96

I particularly liked the part in the OP where it said HUMANS are releasing carbon 10 times faster than anything in the past 60million years.
I didnt even bother reading the rest.

That is a flat out lie.

Because Yellowstone erupted 3 times within that time frame.

Well within 60 million, and it changed the WORLD.

a reply to: neo96

hvo.wr.usgs.gov...

It's all about perspective, yes volcanos release co2, but not like we are.

I got in trouble with my religion a long time ago.

Standing up at the pulpit, looking all authoritarian, quoting scripture, and Greek this and Hebrew that, some "fact" was spewed that sounded, to me anyway, unbelievable. It had something to do with time, vast swaths of time, and after the meeting, I went up to that elder and asked a reasonable question.

OMG!! You would have thought Satan himself had put that doubt in my head! I proceeded to get a lecture about how my faith must be weak if I didn't believe what that scripture, with all its historical validity, had to say.

I simply thought there might....just might....be an alternative interpretation, extenuating circumstances, facts that we had not witnessed, etc. But, noooooo....the scholarly theologians has spoken!

a reply to: Sremmos80

Yeah it is all about 'perspective'.

Don't be so sure.

Because we are looking at billions of tons of earth blown into the skies.

Carbon is included in that.

a reply to: neo96

My link explains that, did you read it?

By all means actually show something other than you just repeating the same thing over and over again. Where are you getting your info from?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Places like this.

The UK and the rest of Earth would not escape. We would all be affected, wherever we were. Global temperatures would plummet by at least 21 degrees. This could last for many years, meaning that all plant life will slowly die off. We will have no vegetables; animals -- our meat -- will have no food, so humankind would likely starve

www.wired.co.uk...

The cascade effect.

A single event that sets off a chain reaction.

Which in the last 60 million years has happened at least 3 times.

Until mankind came along, and thinks he knows everything about everything.

a reply to: queenofswords

And what scientist say here is supposed to be scripture? Great story and all but hardly a fair comparison. Scripture was some guys writing a holy book based on stories.

What the science says is about observable evidence. But hey if you want to be disengenous about it by all means go crazy.
There is no faith about it, that is your strawman you are creating. The only faith I see is the people denying it that don't back anything up. Just say the same thing over and over agian and maybe it will be true.

Government funded research.. A.K.A "Here's some money to make a report with "data" that supports the demanded narrative".

The fact the data is behind a pay-wall, is telling enough.

If that doesn't tell you something, I have a e-book you can buy, that will explain it to you, in very verbose, and drawn out ways.

My argument:

If the science we use for any of this is as inaccurate as other sciences we are told to be absolutely solid, but comes out later that they are not, as technology grows; Then how can we believe that what we are being told is actually accurate?

In a world where everything can be manipulated, and especially in a world where most are too busy to care, nothing should be taken at face value. Question everything!

a reply to: neo96

So still nothing about the release of co2 but just the aftermath of a super volcano. I have yet to see someone deny what you are saying, but also yet to see anyone ask about that. Yes that could happen, so that means throw care to wind and don't care about anything else? You could die tomorrow neo, guess you better not worry about a single thing today!

a reply to: Sremmos80

I didn't think you would get it nor understand the nuances.

And, another thing, I am disgusted with people who say "you don't care about anything else" (see your accusation in your last post). Just because there are people that question this Church of Climatology, doesn't mean they don't care. So put a lid on that constant cry baby tactic, please.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Yeah well the vegetation destroyed in the blast, and the resulting ash.

There would be no plants to 'eat' up the co2.

Which brings us to the point.

The earths cycle has been that of constant destruction,and renewal.

It's how we came along.

Mankind needs to face the fact. Like everything else his days are numbered.

Running around screaming 'we're all gonna die someday' does nothing.

Neither does any of the 'solutions' offered.

a reply to: neo96

Let me put it like this.

There is a tremendous spike in increase of how much carbon hes been being released in direct parallel to the human industrial revolution. The spike is astronomical and very very steep with no signs of slowing down.

You can argue that it is a natural spike because carbon emission levels have always gone up and down throughout earths history.

But, for many good reasons 98 percent of scientists will disagree with you.

The only argument you would have after that is that 98 percent of the smart people that study stuff like this is all in cahoots in a massive conspiracy funded by the government for a scheme to raise taxes.

I'll side with the scientists.

ETA. BUT..... that being said I think we can safely dismiss the claim of the OP that humans are releasing carbon 10 times faster then anything in the past 66 million years

a reply to: Alien Abduct

There is a tremendous spike in increase of how much carbon hes been being released in direct parallel to the human industrial revolution. The spike is astronomical and very very steep with no signs of slowing down.

And that has nothing to do with over 7 billion people breathing, and passing gas.

It's all 'business' fault.

Of course that was ALL happening BEFORE mankind's industrialization.

a reply to: neo96

I would like to focus on the part of the OP that HUMANS are releasing carbon 10 times faster than anything in the past 66 million years.

This argument is BS. And I think we both agree on that part.

I think the rest of what we are talking about we can leave for another thread (there are plenty og them on that subject)

THREAD CLOSED

All variables considered CO2 is not linked to the temperature of the atmosphere.



Bigger View of Graph Above

Consider that CO2 is less than 0.1% of the atmosphere. It would have to get 1000 degrees hotter (or feedback equivalent) with no other changes to raise the temp of atmosphere 1 degree.