4 ms·

Thanks for the info. I'm sorry, you were right, that was a bad source. However, the rebuttal surprisingly leaves out a graph that directly shows temperature ag

Thanks for the info. I'm sorry, you were right, that was a bad source. However, the rebuttal surprisingly leaves out a graph that directly shows temperature against glaciation, solar output and co2, but rather just talks about the comparison, without showing it. I don't find that particularly convincing of anything. Just because > "Around 446 million years ago, volcanic activity dropped while rock weathering remained high." it doesn't follow that > "This caused CO2 levels to fall below 3000 ppm, initiating cooling. It turns out falling CO2 levels was the cause of late Ordovician glaciation.", especially given that this simple graph of all 3 influences mentioned (sun output, glaciation, and co2 levels) against temperature isn't included. Do you know of a source that shows this? > "So we see that comparisons of present day climate to periods 500 million years ago need to take into account that the sun was less active than now. What about times closer to home? The last time CO2 was similar to current levels was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008)." Again, it's hard for me to take this seriously without seeing the comparison between the different forces that are identified against each other and temperature. It's like someone was peering at something through binoculars and said they saw an elephant. They offer as proof by stating, "I see a trunk, and a tail, and its tusks..", but they won't let you look through the binoculars yourself. (Also the Csank 2011 link gives a 404) The best I could find was https://www.co2levels.org/ https://www.co2levels.org/, which if you click the buttons in the top left, can be massaged in displaying co2 vs temperature for the last 800k years. And even in this period there are a few the temperature decouples from the co2 levels and mostly the temperature rise precedes the rise in co2, which makes one think that co2 entering the atmosphere is a effect of climate rather than a cause. > You have to understand geology to be able to compare. If you don't, people with agenda will easily sell you worthless graphs. Worthless as in "CO2 was higher when there were no plants and animals on the land at all, just the naked rocks." Nice target you have. I'm not saying the earth was the same as before. Just that the idea is that co2 is causing irreversible warming and that's that, isn't supported very well by the evidence I've seen. At best what you have given me shows that the co2 causing warming isn't entirely disprovable. I guess what I'm worried about is that the news often simplifies complex topics to, "it's a disaster!", or alternatively, "it's a hoax!" I don't think things are that simple, yet I haven't heard from anyone, scientist or no, that things are not either a "disaster" or a "hoax".

acqq 8y ago
> Just that the idea is that co2 is causing irreversible warming and that's that, isn't supported very well by the evidence But it is, it’s the topic of physics, not history. The historical remains are by nature very incomplete and geology is extremely relevant when you try to interpret the historical proxies, but all that doesn’t matter if you want to understand how warming works: physics is undeniable, and all effects are known and are part of the models: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo... Once again: it doesn’t help to say “it was warmer n millions years ago” if the continents weren’t the same and there were no humans. Our civilisation depends on many very fine tuned balances.
- topmonk 8y ago
  > But it is, it’s the topic of physics, not history. The historical remains are by nature very incomplete and geology is extremely relevant when you try to interpret the historical proxies, but all that doesn’t matter if you want to understand how warming works: physics is undeniable, and all effects are known and are part of the models: > https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo... There are no sources in this link. There is nothing about physics in this link. It simply describes a bunch of other forces and declares they are not applicable, therefore co2 is the only thing left and it must be the culprit. Forgive me, but science isn't a game of "Clue". Putting up a bunch of straw men and tearing them down doesn't mean that "the butler must have done it with the wrench", or in this case, co2 must have increased the temperature. And wasn't your link from the your last post primarily referring to the history of the earth as evidence of co2 production? So which is it? The case for undeniable physics, which you have not provided a link for, or from the evidence from geologic history, which you have abandoned. In the same spirit as your link, here is Leonard Nimoy talking about Global Cooling from the 1970's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei-_SXLMMfo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei-_SXLMMfo . It has about the same amount of evidence. You can also check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling to see the history of this. > Once again: it doesn’t help to say “it was warmer n millions years ago” if the continents weren’t the same and there were no humans. Our civilisation depends on many very fine tuned balances. Where did I say that "it was warmer n millions years ago" proves that increased co2 is not going to increase the temperature? I'm just saying you haven't shown it will. You are vehemently asserting, times were different then, so all I can conjecture is that you mean that we can throw that data out. I don't necessarily think so, but I also don't think that doing so proves your point. I can't prove co2 hasn't increased the temperature, but it's difficult to prove a negative. To wit, maybe an extreme example, but I can't prove the earth wasn't created 4000 years ago as per the Christian Bible, yet that doesn't mean it's true. I'm am saying that what you've shown doesn't prove that increased co2 is going to warm the earth to a significant degree, and the current situation isn't caused by other factors. To that point, it shares all the hallmarks of mass hysteria. A single central idea is put into the public consciousness, and each and every event is then linked to that event. I also ask you to respond point to point to what I've written rather than simply try and attack a single statement. I wish you'd have responded to what I wrote concerning the lack of transparency of your link from skepticalscience.com or the graph from co2levels.org. Why won't you address this?

acqq 8y ago

> Just that the idea is that co2 is causing irreversible warming and that's that, isn't supported very well by the evidence But it is, it’s the topic of physics, not history. The historical remains are by nature very incomplete and geology is extremely relevant when you try to interpret the historical proxies, but all that doesn’t matter if you want to understand how warming works: physics is undeniable, and all effects are known and are part of the models: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo... Once again: it doesn’t help to say “it was warmer n millions years ago” if the continents weren’t the same and there were no humans. Our civilisation depends on many very fine tuned balances.

topmonk 8y ago
> But it is, it’s the topic of physics, not history. The historical remains are by nature very incomplete and geology is extremely relevant when you try to interpret the historical proxies, but all that doesn’t matter if you want to understand how warming works: physics is undeniable, and all effects are known and are part of the models: > https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo... There are no sources in this link. There is nothing about physics in this link. It simply describes a bunch of other forces and declares they are not applicable, therefore co2 is the only thing left and it must be the culprit. Forgive me, but science isn't a game of "Clue". Putting up a bunch of straw men and tearing them down doesn't mean that "the butler must have done it with the wrench", or in this case, co2 must have increased the temperature. And wasn't your link from the your last post primarily referring to the history of the earth as evidence of co2 production? So which is it? The case for undeniable physics, which you have not provided a link for, or from the evidence from geologic history, which you have abandoned. In the same spirit as your link, here is Leonard Nimoy talking about Global Cooling from the 1970's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei-_SXLMMfo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei-_SXLMMfo . It has about the same amount of evidence. You can also check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling to see the history of this. > Once again: it doesn’t help to say “it was warmer n millions years ago” if the continents weren’t the same and there were no humans. Our civilisation depends on many very fine tuned balances. Where did I say that "it was warmer n millions years ago" proves that increased co2 is not going to increase the temperature? I'm just saying you haven't shown it will. You are vehemently asserting, times were different then, so all I can conjecture is that you mean that we can throw that data out. I don't necessarily think so, but I also don't think that doing so proves your point. I can't prove co2 hasn't increased the temperature, but it's difficult to prove a negative. To wit, maybe an extreme example, but I can't prove the earth wasn't created 4000 years ago as per the Christian Bible, yet that doesn't mean it's true. I'm am saying that what you've shown doesn't prove that increased co2 is going to warm the earth to a significant degree, and the current situation isn't caused by other factors. To that point, it shares all the hallmarks of mass hysteria. A single central idea is put into the public consciousness, and each and every event is then linked to that event. I also ask you to respond point to point to what I've written rather than simply try and attack a single statement. I wish you'd have responded to what I wrote concerning the lack of transparency of your link from skepticalscience.com or the graph from co2levels.org. Why won't you address this?