humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 24, 5:29 pm, TC wrote:
> On Mar 24, 1:04 pm, chazwin wrote:
>
> > The highest estimates for anthropgenic CO2 is only around 100 parts
> > per million in the last 100 years. No one is able to tell me how such
> > a tiny concentration change can also change the temperature of the
> > atmosphere.
>
> You've got to think in relative terms.
> The 100 ppm raised the level from 280 ppm
> to 380 ppm
> That is an increase of 36%,

Meaningless. If I increase the alcohol in my drink from 0.01% to
0.0136% it still will not get me drunk no matter how much I drink of
it.
It will still not get me drunk if I double, triple or quadruple the
amount.

There is no science that goes anywhere near suggesting that such tiny
amounts of CO2 can affect the temperature: none.

>
> During the last ice age it was 210 ppm, so
> arguing the other way, a 25% decrease is the difference
> between current climate and an ice age.
>
> Tom

But you are falsely assuming that CO2 effects the temperature: it does
not! 36% of nothing is still nothing. The amount is still too small to
make a difference.
While we on on the ice-age. How do you account for the fact that CO2
concetrations seem to lag behind the temperature evidence by 800 years
and more? The evidence shows that CO2 is an indicator of a higher
temperature, not the cause. It is likely that low CO2 in cold periods
is due to less plant groth activity, whilst at time of higher
temperatures the plant acitivity increases over the centuries to
reflect the evidence in the ice-cores.

How do you account for the fact that between 1945 -1970 when the
output of CO2 increased massively the earth's temperature dropped -
so much so that scientists in 1974 were warning of a new ice age.