3 ms·
Would you mind providing actual data or citations for any of these claims? The scientific rigor of a random YouTube channel is, ah, a bit lacking. You claim a
by XMPPwocky 8y ago
Would you mind providing actual data or citations for any of these claims? The scientific rigor of a random YouTube channel is, ah, a bit lacking.
You claim a lot of things here, but let's just look at one-
> Since there is also data about the CO2 level in the atmosphere in the last 10,000 years it is extremely obvious that CO2 is not a major factor in the temperature increase (scientists estimate a 1-2% causation).
CO2 isn't the only driver of climate change- a claim I've never seen anybody make- but from what I've seen it looks like one of the major ones, especially on the short term.
Why do you not agree that there's a connection between CO2 levels and global temperature? The theory appears pretty straightforwards- you must have some empirical data, then. Mind showing it?
- airbreather 8y agoNo discussion about co2 and climate change is relevant or complete without discussing the role of ch4 (methane), a much more powerful greenhouse gas.
- XMPPwocky 8y agoRight- definitely when discussing anthropogenic issues. (Also worth considering sulfur aerosols and their cooling effect, and lots of other stuff too.) Historically, though- IIUC- atmospheric methane levels have varied less than CO2, at least after some clever organism figured out how to photosynthesize, so, with solar output controlled for, the biggest hunk of temperature changes can be explained by the CO2 concentration.