Ice Age At 2000+ PPM CO2

Climate during the Carboniferous Period

Earth experienced an ice age 450 million years ago, with CO2 somewhere between 2000 and 8000 ppm. According to Hansen’s theories – all life on Earth should have been extinct before it even evolved.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Ice Age At 2000+ PPM CO2

  1. Sleepalot says:

    Wikipedia does not have a page for the Ordovician ice age. Wikipeadia claims the Ordovician Ige age was only 0.5-1.5 million years long. The thickness of the blue temperature line is about 4 million years. Clearly they’re in deep denial.

  2. pet says:

    do you mean 2000-8000 PPM?

  3. kirkmyers says:

    For obvious reasons, the Warmists never talk about the cold of the Late Ordovician Period, when the planet’s average temperature was far lower than today’s 15 degrees centigrade, yet CO2 concentrations were nearly 12 times higher, at 4,400 ppm. According to the conventional greenhouse gas theory, our planet should have overheated. There are clearly other influences (the sun comes to mind) besides CO2 that impact the earth’s global temperature.

    But if you’re a scientist trolling for research dollars to study (“confirm” is a better word) human-caused “climate change,” such facts are inconvenient. And those skeptics who cite such data our attacked and ridiculed for challenging the “scientific consensus,” which, of course, is non-existent.

  4. kirkmyers says:

    There is a treasure trove of excellent research at this site that exposes the CO2 warming myth.

  5. Andy DC says:

    According to peer review from 97% of leading climate experts, the earth should have heated up above the boiling point and all life should have been exterminated. The fact that it did the opposite would appear to undermine their already highly dubious credibility.

  6. Cthruit says:

    Finnaly we know the truth… CO2 causes cooling and to stop future out-of-control global cooling we must control CO2 output. Our food supply depends on it! CO2 continues to increase with no associated increase in warming. The science is so complex that warming can cause cooling or what is called “wooling”, which is bad. All funding must be diverted to study AGC. If CO2 doesn’t cause warming then it must cause something, Right?

  7. Greg Goodknight says:

    It was “Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?” by Shaviv & Veizer (2003) that helped kick me from Lukewarmer to skeptic to scoffer in 2007 when I first read it, thanks to Svensmark’s Cosmoclimatology paper which referenced it and other very interesting lines of investigation. And that path has been steadily been solidified with both theory and experiment thanks to the likes of Svensmark, Friis-Christensen, Shaviv, Veizer, Lindzen, and not the least Kirkby. And a host of others.

    From Shaviv’s website:

    Figure 5 is from SV03, which can be found here:

    Figure 1 from SV03 shows the poor correlation between CO2 and ocean temps over the past ~500 million years.

  8. napiersabre says:

    Palaeontologists are also in denial about the atmosphere as according to everything we think we know the dinosaurs could not have existed in the thin atmosphere we have at present let alone some have flown. Its only when we join up the thinking as good engineers have been trained to do that we can make use of the information scientists provide us with. They on the other hand are on the whole poor at thinking things through if it involves knowledge outside their field of expertise which these days can be very narrow

  9. t w says:

    only die hard climate denier losers read this crap anyways – good thing nobody that matters takes this blog seriously

  10. for one brief period of about 10M years, out of 1/2 billion years or
    about 2% of the time, available information indicates that the CO2 was high and the temperature was low. Well, we know where the really stupid money will bet don’t we?

    How stupid you ask: Well dumber than trees, and almost everything that flies, creeps or swims:

    Given an organism in an environment one can state that the most adaptive will, by definition, be the most likely to survive. In order to adapt to an environment, an organism must understand it. One could say that the ability to understand ones environment is perhaps the best measure of intelligence that exists. As far as evolution is concerned it is the only measure that counts. Being able to do math and calculate a trajectory does not count, but being able to dodge a predator definitely does count. If two organisms share about the same abilities to react to a given situation then the organism that can read the situation the most accurately is the one most likely to survive.

    Now consider Global warming. A search of the internet will quickly demonstrate that the vast majority of species on the planet are moving to the poles, or are moving, if they can, to higher elevations. In addition to that, the timing of migration patterns are changing. If this data is not accurate then not only are all climate scientists part of this climate gate conspiracy, but so are all botanists, ethologists, marine biologists, and microbiologists, entomologists and probably some others. So there is the first bit of information: If you do not believe that the climate is warming on a global scale then in terms of evolution you are less knowledgeable about your environment (less intelligent) then the great majority of animals, plants, insects, and even ocean dwelling single celled organisms like plankton. Yep, you are dumber than a plant or an insect.

    The pattern of GW denial sort of follows that of, and is similar to the arguments used to deny the correlation between smoking and cancer and a host of other diseases. You had actual scientists looking at the best available evidence on one side, and then you had paid charlatans with degrees in science working for corporations whose interests were threatened on the other. That was not 100% mind you, but it was pretty much how the advocates of the two positions lined up. A prime example is Dr. Frederick Seitz who sold out to become a spokesman for big tobacco and tried to convince people that tobacco was harmless. Later, after, at least according to many who were close to him, he became senile, he sold out to climate deniers.

    Now in this case on one side we have not only actual scientists doing their best to explain available information in light of best understood implications of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, black body radiation etc. but you have almost all other life forms on the planet. By other forms of life, I mean almost every entity on the planet living in all but the most extreme areas.

    Now if we accept GW, the next question is: what causes it? Trust me, it is not the sun which for the past 50 years has remained fairly constant or produced less radiation over that time while temperatures have risen. It has not changed much in the past 2000 years. Neither has known cosmic ray counts. This leaves galactic unicorn farts and CO2. We know about CO2, and how it would work, and the most likely results. We have no evidence of unicorn farts, but we do know about bloviation sources from hot air producers.

    Another red herring from AGW people are the failure of computer models and the testability of theories. If the prediction of a theory fails then the theory is false. Well folks, then I guess that the germ theory of disease is false. Clearly, many people exposed to “so called germs” never get sick. On the other hand people get sick who have never been exposed to these “so called germs” But wait, they are not really germs, they are viruses. See — those scientists keep changing their story. Because they are in the pay of big pharma who just want to sell us drugs to make us sick so that they can make us more sick. And space that is another hoax. You know that the sun goes around the earth, just go outside and look for yourself. What? You believe the so called scientists?

    And speaking of hot air producers. This is a standard equation in statistics, the Gaussian integral. If you can not follow the proof, then you do not have a basic understanding of one of the most basic equations in statistics, which means that you do not understand statistics, which means that you are as competent to argue a point of view on AGW as you are to advocate competing forms of cancer treatment without ever having had a course in biology.

    Another measure of the incompetence of an AGW deiner is that I doubt that one in a hundred would be aware that there is a difference between random and chaotic, and I doubt that one in 1000 would know the difference, or understand it if it were explained to them. Again: few in the AGW camp know any math beyond advanced algebra.

    But since AGW deniers acutely suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect:, they will continue to bloviate.

      • transrp says:

        Name calling or ad hominem attack. the rhetorical technique used by people who have neither the information nor logic to support their position, or refute the position of the other party. Or, if by some strange circumstance, they had both available, then they did not have the IQ to use them in an appropriate manner.

        • gator69 says:

          It may be name calling, but it is still a correct assessment.

          In order to adapt to an environment, an organism must understand it.

          That is a moronic statement.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Amazing how Glaciation deniers always, always resort to Ad Hom when observations trash their tidy little propaganda fed world.

      • transrp says:

        A am aware of ad hominem attacks. I am open to your telling what other term, other than stupid, one would use when describing someone who has less sense about the envirionment than trees. Also, Ad Hom has no meaning. It is probably a term made up by — well a stupid person. I see that despite over 900 words of verbiage you failed to point out a single error of either information or logic.

        When the other side is genuinely ignorant of relevant information, and dumber than trees, then what other term would you use to describe them? Professor — at bob jones university?

        • Gail Combs says:


        • transrp says:

          Ahhh. An answer given by someone who probably could not pass a 2nd year physics course, or a second year calculus course. Am I correct? Or maybe you will tell me what your science degree is in. Mine is in engineering math and physics with graduate work in math.

          And if scientists are so dumb, how about you stup using the stuff that these dumb scientists make possible (via engineers) you know — like computers, cell phones, maybe the medicine that yout take. Yea — Just boycott all thost stupid scientist, and their useless sciency stuff

        • gator69 says:

          Gail has forgotten more science than you will ever know.

          Let’s see how smart you are transrp…

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        • transrp says:

          To gator69 (Np reply link there)
          I will go with the 2nd. paragraph “- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.”

          for the following reasons. 1.) you have changed the topic from is climate change happening, to are humans causing it. Apparently, you agree that the climate is getting warmer, so perhaps you are not really dumber than a plant.

          Given that peer reviewed papers do not seem to be readily available on search engines, and I do not want to go to technical libraries, or spend money to subscribe to relevant journals, let me do this instead
          Let me give you some links:

, which included this:
          Please note that solar irradiance has fluctuated since 1975, and has gonedown since aboiut 2000, but that temperatures have gone up.

          I did find these papers: Happy reading

          Heare are about 15 peer reviewed papers — note some links fail

          Here is a good paper.

          there are dozens more. Here is one for you. Pick out a single possible natural variant that you claim has caused global warming. I will produce two papers that refute it. 🙂

        • gator69 says:

          transrp, please show me which parts of your links disprove natural variability. Or are you only able to cut and paste links? My guess is that you have no idea what those papers actually say, and it is an eduacated guess, as NV has never been disproven.

          Care to prove me wrong?

        • transrp says:

          “Care to prove me wrong?”
          How about this: the following is evidence that you are a scientifically ignorant fool. In the are of science one never “proves” anything. One offers evidence that can be supported, measure, or falsified, in support of a theory or argument. I will give you an example. I believe that you are aware that most of our current cutting edge consumer technology, viz. various cell phones with gps, depend the theories of both on General relativity theory and quantum mechanics. Yet at least one of them must be false, since they are incompatible with each other.

          The point is, that only a fool who is ignorant about the most basic foundations of science asks for proof, as opposed to evidence.

          Let me give you another example. COPD and CAD both falsify the germ theory of disease, as does the existence the existence of all those “germs” in our intestines that help us stay alove.

          As to which of my links disprove natural variability. Why none of them In fact, there is no evidence that proves that global warming is not caused by unicorn farts. See above.

        • gator69 says:

          So you have changed your answer! Good. You are learning!

          Climate change is a perfectly natural occurrence, and cannot be blamed on man, per the science. Now go and spew no more.

    • “the vast majority of species on the planet are moving to the poles, or are moving, if they can, to higher elevations”

      I was born in the UK but moved to the Canary Islands, where I live a few metres above sea level. I can confirm there is no one else here, there are no animals and no fish in the sea. You must be absolutely right and while I moved closer to the equator, everything else moved towards the poles. The north pole must be absolutely full of all the people, birds, insects, fish, rabbits, lizards, cockroaches etc etc that I don’t see here every second of every waking hour.

      • transrp says:

        Cleary you did notice that I used the term moving, as opposed to move. You must have done very poorly in reading comprehension exams. 2nd. Very large exological systems change slowly when disturbed. For example, when you remove Wolves from some ecosystems then the aspen do not just keel over or wither away. Nope. But their population starts to shrink. It took about 50 years before this effect became noticable enough, and the connection made.

        Surprise, surprise, when wolves were re-intorduced to Yellowstone and other similar places, the Aspen began to rebound. You never took, let alone passed any upper division, science or math courses did you. In fact, given your obvious lack of reading comprehension ability, I doubt that you did more than get through a few semesters of community college.

  11. Frank Logan says:

    Having an open mind, enables one to seek the truth. Most people have a closed mind, and thus are easily duped. AGW is a con. Pure and simple. (So is leftist dogma)

  12. transrp says:

    Heads up an congratulations: Congratulations to the author of the gator69 AI bot. Very realistic. I simply deleted its most recent response since it clearly demonstrated the reading comprehension of, maybe, a 4th grader. I just did not comprehend how someone who appeared to be literate could have such poor reading comprehension skills as to misunderstand my statement that people who use proof when discussing science theories are scientifically ignorant. I even gave two examples. Then I went to lunch.

    While preparing lunch it occurred to me that this could only happen if gator69 (a sexual reference involving reptiles??) was not a someone, but a something. An AI bot. So, congratulations to the author of that bot, and heads up to everyone else. Oh — and I will accept as evidence that gator69 is not an AI bot if he shows up at my door with evidence of his education, and a state issued ID.

    • gator69 says:

      And now we see the complete retreat from any and all scientific discussions by Mr trsnp, a well respected man about town. Visit his Facebook page, and bask in the glory that is an internet troll.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s