Researchers find ancient records of freeze-thaw cycles in Antarctica . . . before the bad ol' industrial revolution came along to drive Climate Change . . . they must be wrong, only men can cause warmening!

submitted by iamonlyoneman from wattsupwiththat.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

absorbance in the spectral bands that CO2 absorbs in becomes near staturated near the middle of the band, so adding CO2 doesn't have as much of an effect

Disproving the run away greenhouse effect which is still the mainstream narrative.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Disproving the run away greenhouse effect which is still the mainstream narrative.

You talk a lot of shit for someone who pretends to have critically read thousands of scholarly papers on climate sensitivity, and "analyze[d] them critically".

The mainstream narrative is that climate sensitivity is about 3°C per doubling. And after about 1.5°C of warming we are at risk from tipping points.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The mainstream narrative is that climate change is an existential threat, and that if we don't act right now we will all die.

I'd like to see mainstream news debunking the run away greenhouse effect. Or any of the other claims that you deny are part of the mainstream narrative.

Co2 was at 4k ppm before the last ice age started. Then we were plunged into an ice age. Explain that, because that completely obliterates your claim that co2 is a thermostat which moves the global temperature 3* per doubling.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

That 3°C per doubling has been a more or less consistent estimate of the climate sensitivity to CO2 since the late 1800s.

That's what's been reported by the scientists, and had been understood my the car majority of the msm.

Before the last ice age, CO2 peaked between 280 and 300ppm. As it did prior to the two before that.

https://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Antarctic-Temperature.png

Why don't you fact check some of the stuff you're posting, before posting it?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Before the last ice age, CO2 peaked between 280 and 300ppm. As it did prior to the two before that.

Why don't you get your facts straight. An ice age is defined by year round ice, as we currently have at the poles. It started 3 million years ago. What you are confused by is interglacial temperature cycles. Ice core samples are inherently corrupted by selection bias. You can't get ice core samples from before the last ice age. Go do some research on what temperature and CO2 was before the current ice age started.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Why don't you get your facts straight. An ice age is defined by year round ice, as we currently have at the poles. It started 3 million years ago.

Oh, that meaning of ice age.

SO the current ice age is the whole Quaternary glaciation, so the last ice age would be what, the Late Paleozoic Ice Age?

And you claim that before that CO2 was at 4000 ppm?

That's quite a long time ago, and the ways of measuring CO2 concentration back then are limited. But if you go back about 60 million years prior to that ice age you get some quite high estimates of CO2 concentration. Perhaps even a little over 2000 ppm.

Go do some research on what temperature and CO2 was before the current ice age started.

You're talking about the current ice age now?

Prior to that CO2 concentration only got as high as about 1000 ppm. But we're talking 30-50 million years ago. That may well suit a Brontotherium, but that doesn't help because they're already extinct.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's quite a long time ago, and the ways of measuring CO2 concentration back then are limited.

And here we go with the science denial. Suddenly when it doesn't support your politics the appeal to science turns to science denial.

That may well suit a Brontotherium, but that doesn't help because they're already extinct.

Try to follow what the argument is: we went from 4k ppm co2 into an ice age. This fact destroys your claim that co2 is a thermostat that controls temperature.

It is not an argument about what creature likes co2.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And here we go with the science denial. Suddenly when it doesn't support your politics the appeal to science turns to science denial

It's you that it doesn't support.

2000ppm is not 4000ppm.

Try to follow what the argument is:

How are we supposed to do that when you can't even be consistent about whether you're talking about the last ice age or the current one?

we went from 4k ppm co2 into an ice age.

We were nowhere near 4000ppm. We might have got to 1000 or 2000, depending on which I've age you're talking about.

To get into the ice age we dropped below 400ppm.

This fact destroys your claim that co2 is a thermostat that controls temperature.

1) You're complete delusional about reality. Your "fact" has 2 mistakes in it.

2) You're completely delusional about this conversation. I never said anything about a thermostat. And i never said "controls temperature".

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How are we supposed to do that when you can't even be consistent about whether you're talking about the last ice age or the current one?

The last ice age IS the current one. That is how that works when you are in an ice age.

We were nowhere near 4000ppm.

Irrelevant to the argument. Please re read the previous comments until you understand what the argument is.

I never said anything about a thermostat. And i never said "controls temperature".

"The mainstream narrative is that climate sensitivity is about 3°C per doubling."- you

In other words temperature goes up and down with co2, like a thermostat.

To get into the ice age we dropped below 400ppm.

From 4k to 200 yet we are now at the brink of annihilation because if co2 goes up any more it will cause an irreversible runaway increase. Hur Der muh tipping point.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The last ice age IS the current one.

Why don't you call it the current one, so that we don't confuse it with the last one then?

That is how that works when you are in an ice age.

Are you drunk? If you're in a Thursday does "last Thursday" mean "today"?

Irrelevant to the argument.

You said we hit 4000 ppm. This is something you made up. The true high between the current ice age and the previous one is about 1000ppm.

"The mainstream narrative is that climate sensitivity is about 3°C per doubling."- you

In other words temperature goes up and down with co2, like a thermostat.

No it doesn't.

There are other things that cause radiative forcing other than CO2. CO2 has dominated for the past 100 years, as shown above.

And it's not like a thermostat. It's energy in to a dynamic system with many feedback mechanisms operating on a wide range of time scales.

From 4k to 200 yet we are now at the brink of annihilation because if co2 goes up any more it will cause an irreversible runaway increase.

No, it will cause 3°C of warming each time it doubles. I've already made this pretty clear. Your attempts to straw man the science strongly imply that you've got no honest point