Happy Columbus Federal Holiday! Take the day off with pay, unless you're in the private sector.

Think of Italian Cuisine w/o Tomatoes. Marinara, Pasta Sauce non-existent prior to Columbus.

Think of the Jewish Latkes, or French Fries 'Frites', or the Irish Famine w/o Potatoes

Think of Belgian Chocolate w/o Cocoa Beans

Think of Scottish or Irish Corn Mash Whisky w/o Corn.

Think of Cigars or Cigarettes, or Nicotine w/o Tobacco

Tomato, To-mahto, Potato, Po-tahto ;
Columbus changed the European crop scene and cuisine from the year 1500 onward.

Caesar never saw a tomato, let alone red pizza sauce

But Caesar got the salad thing down without tomatoes, right? Good thing he could fill that void with croutons until Chris came along. LOL!

upvoted

Trying to deny that Climate exists is really something I haven't seen before. I'd love to hear where you got that idea from

Never said climate doesn't exist. Said CO2 does not control either weather or climate. Never has, never will. Here's the definition of climate from a respected 1966 collegiate dictionary-Noun- The composite or generalization of weather conditions of a region averaged over a series of years. Climate change is a political invention and a hoax, nothing in science supports it.

Climate Change is an observed phenomenon and is supported by basic chemistry -- all remotely complex gases absorb infrared radiation eacaping the Earth (heat) and re emit it back towards Earth. This takes place with all gases in the atmosphere with more than two constituent atoms.

Just to add to my previous statement, the Greenhouse effect that causes climate change was first proposed as a theory/discovered by Joseph Fourier (one of the most important mathematicians in history) in 1824. The earliest known time someone predicted a link between human carbon emissions and climate change was in 1912 in a Kiwi newspaper I've included above. If it's a hoax, who was there to benefit from it in 1824, or 1912?

No disrespect intended, but try this simple exercise. We are told the 350 parts per million CO2 is maximum limit of CO2 in the atmosphere, The addition of 50 parts per million puts the climate at a "tipping point." I did gas measurement for a living, so I can visualize this, but for your benefit, create a scale model of these proportions. Draw one million dots, shade 350 a wholesome green and shade 50 of them a climate changing red. There is no way 50 parts per million has this overstated impact on climate. NASA had satellite imagery showing CO2 concentrations around the world showing areas downwind of rainforests (such as the Amazon Rainforest) with over 3000 ppm CO2, at the poles where there no vegetative matter the readings are almost zero. Commercial greenhouses elevate CO2 concentrations to 2000 ppm to increase yields.
Now for scientifically proven physics. CO2 is a transparent, clear, odorless gas. The Law of Equilibrium dictates that if CO2 reflects heat back to the earth, it would reflect at least an equal amount back into space. It would be self equalizing. Gas Laws of physics contradict the theory of CO2 induced climate change. The atmosphere is not laminar (consistent layers) but is turbulent (swirls and mixing) so there is no such thing as 350 ppm, it varies all over the atmosphere. Saying there is an average temperature of earth is equally absurd. Average the temperatures of the poles against the average temperature of Death Valley (where the highest recorded temperature is measured) and the "average temperature" of the earth is around zero degrees. To determine an average temperature of earth would require trillions of data points, but even if it was determined it would be information of little value.
Temperature readings from satellite observation are not accepted for recording record highs and lows by all national weather services. According to statisticians, satellite data is unreliable, and has really only been available since the 1990s. The earth has been much warmer in the recorded and geologic past, as well as colder.
I could go on, but if you are determined to hold to the view that mankind is destroying the planet, it wouldn't produce anything. I published a well received paper about 10 years ago that was viewed internationally showing specifically how every science disproves the theory of climate change.
The early sources you cite are either influenced by or influenced the Malthusian theory that the world will run out of resources.

One additional point, CO2 readings in the higher layers of the atmosphere are statistically insignificant. Almost all CO2. as a heavier molecule. is found withing 1500 feet of the surface the earth, be it mountain or valley. Ironically this is precisely where it is needed most by plant life, which sustains life on earth.

Saying there is an average temperature is quite reasonable. The question is how useful that metric is, and it is useful for one thing - trends in weather and temperature. We do not need trillions of data points for this - Earth has 200 million square miles of surface area. If we put a weather station in each square mile, and take 1 measurement every day, we get 73bn data points. In reality, we do not need this many, because temperature does not wildly change every day, every square mile. The pre-industrial average temperature (the 1850-1900 average) is not 0, be that °C, °F, or Kelvin (though I'll stick with Kelvin from now on because it's easiest). Average temperature was roughly 288K (15°C or 59°F). Now that has moved up to around 289-290K. This should be all I need to prove it's real, but let's continue.
78% of the atmosphere is nitrogen, 21% is oxygen and 0.9% is argon. These three are not greenhouse gases, as they have either one or no chemical bonds in their molecular structure. This leaves 0.1% of the Earth's atmosphere (by volume) to be greenhouse gases, or 1,000ppm. Space's temperature is around 3K, meaning those 1,000ppm greenhouse gases heat the Earth from 3K to 288K, or by 285K. Basic maths tells us that 1ppm of greenhouse gas causes 0.29K of temperature increase. Now, the reality is lower than this for a variety of factors (the sun heats up the space around Earth slightly, the gases only insulate at night, etc). So yes, 50ppm does mean a significant increase.
The law of equilibrium is correct. An infrared photon leaving the Earth strikes a CO2 molecule, exciting one of its electrons. That electron de-excites, emitting another infrared photon. That photon has a 50/50 chance of going back to Earth or into space. Without the CO2, it had a 100% chance of leaving Earth. Hence heating.
I'm not sure what greenhouse CO2 concentration has to do with anything, given that it's done because plants use CO2 in photosynthesis.
Now I would really love to see NASA's imagery of 3000ppm, if you could send that, please do. Same goes for your paper, I would love to read it. I would also love to hear about the statisticians who say satellite data is unreliable, especially since statisticians dont usually concern themselves with the workings of satellites.
As for your claim regarding geological periods, it is true. However, humans did not evolve in the Carboniferous period (300mya). We are not suited for different temperatures. Life will go on. Human life won't.

Widely change? Where I live in Colorado we just went from a high of 83 degrees to a low of 28 degrees the following morning. Fifteen years ago I was sent to work in Wyoming in mid-January. The day I arrived I was required to shave my winter beard because we were working in a gas field with H2S, which required the ability to put on tight fitting Scott pack masks if there were a release of the extremely deadly gas. It was 60 degrees that day, that night an arctic front moved in and the temperature dropped to lower than 40 degrees below zero. In desert climates the temperatures can and do swing over 80 degrees in a 24 hour period. If the climate were static, there might be a basis for your statements, but it is extremely dynamic.
You completely missed the point on how utterly useless an average temperature of earth is. No such thing exists. How is the average temperature of earth related to the average temperature of Libya? The North Pole?
You are clever by half on your photons and equilibrium. Did you neglect the same process happening in the opposite direction?
If 2000 ppm in a greenhouse is not destructive, and people can work by OSHA standards at 10,000 ppm CO2, how is 400 ppm deadly? It isn't.
Unreliability of satellite data? The National Weather Service won't permit satellite data for temperature record. They have to be measured by instruments on the site with specific standards.
Don't ignore the ice ages and heat waves that humanity evolved during. Clearly if humanity evolved, we are perfectly adaptable to 1 degree+ C average temperature changes. If not, life is not possible on this planet. What is an average? It's an approximation of the center of a range.
Think about it. It's not stuck on the high or low end of the range. Here's a 1/100th scale.
You are capable, research the temperatures of the various layers of the atmosphere, it's fascinating. And it disproves CO2 as responsible for "climate change." Every science does, when it is properly applied, not manipulated for Malthusian politics.

You've just explained why average temperature is useful. It balances out these changes to give a general picture. If temp in the arctic, the mojave, and germany all rise by 1K in a year, the difference in temp between the locations doesn't matter, rather the overall change. Yes, weather fluctuates within hours, but I can guarantee you, if it was cold in wyoming, it was cold a few miles east of there. You don't need a weather station every square mile to accurately record data. You don't need 200m weather stations. If all 17,500 weather stations record a ~1K increase in average temp in their area, that shows quite a clear trend. You seem not to have understood the concept that, if temp fluctuates from 250-300K in one day, a weather station can just take several readings at those points and find the average temperature. It's not that complex. The climate is not static, that's why we use an average.
No I did not neglect this happening in the opposite direction, because it doesn't happen. Photons coming from the sun have a higher frequency than those leaving the earth (UV compared to infrared), meaning they interact minimally with greenhouse gases.
The OSHA standard determines breathability of air, not heat. CO2 is toxic in large concentrations, so OSHA defines a concentration above which it is dangerous. OSHA does not cover the greenhouse effect because a workplace is not a planet. CO2 warms the planet up. That's the issue. Not how toxic it is. I've already shown you the maths on why an increase in greenhouse gases is dangerous.
The image I included seems to describe how the NWS uses satellites to monitor temperature.
Yes, Ice ages exist. In fact, the average temp was as much as 8K cooler 20,000 years ago. Climate change is currently warming us 10 times faster than leaving the ice age did. This means we don't have time to evolve or adapt. Our stat for pre-industrial temp is the 1850-1900 average, so it doesn't account for the ice ages.
If you're going to dig at this by calling it Malthusian, I suggest you learn the actual background behind the Malthusian model.
You're the one trying to disprove climate change. If different layers in the atmosphere disprove it, you show me.

PS: I'd still love to see the map of 3000ppm downwind of rainforests as well as the paper you wrote

It won't change your indoctrination, but here's a start for you on the NASA website
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5047/
You don't understand what toxic is. CO2 is not toxic, we exhale it with every breath.
Assuming you are converting to Kelvin to dramatize your doctrine, it doesn't change a thing except for the perception of more drastic numbers.
If you were capable of genuine inquiry, your conclusions would be rational. You can't look at 10,000 dots (1% of 1 million) and see that 1/2 of one dot equals 50 ppm. That CO2 must be bigger than a death star to reflect the awesome K of heat you regurgitate. Thankfully the rest of the CO2 remains atomic.
Your insult on understanding Mathuse is wasted.
Live in your dying paradigm, and know when you die at a ripe old age, perhaps slightly overweight that your fantasy changed the world. CO2 has never been essential for life.
I can point you to all kinds of data, but what use? You won't analyze it, much of it will be over your head anyway, and you think you know better than proven science anyway.
Here's a good one- climate changers panicked when a glacier melted in British Columbia several years ago, revealing a primordial forest that was encased in ice 10,000 years ago.
Get it? Okay, let me try to explain facts. The Primordial forest grew 10,000 years ago in a warmer period with absolutely no human consumption of fossil fuels. Temperatures dropped and precipitation encased the once living trees in ice for 10,000 years. Temperatures increased to a level similar to the temperatures when the trees were not encased in ice 10,000 years ago, exposing the formerly verdant forest. Clearly the cause is human consumption of carbon based energy sources.
Don't blame me if you can't google it.
As for my research, it's archived behind a paywall. I think they charge $5k for it, so let me know how you want to pay.

Correction 1/2 dot is equivalent to 50 ppm-

I love the fact that the NASA article mentions climate change is happening and heavily implies that it is caused by CO2, but I digress. I assume that's related to your claim that areas downwind of rainforests have over 3000ppm of CO2, but as it doesn't include any ppm figures, I wouldn't say it's too relevant to your argument.
Actually, I do understand what toxic is. We exhale CO2. It leaves our body. Our bodies get rid of the CO2. Because too much of it is toxic. If CO2 isn't toxic, please find yourself a room with 80% CO2 20% Oxygen and tell me if you survive (same O2 concentration as the atmosphere, so you'll be fine, right?)
Fortunately, your assumption is wrong. I'm using Kelvin because you're American so I can't use celsius, and I'm European, so I can't use fahrenheit. Kelvin is also the standard scientific temp scale, so the fact you don't understand it is concerning. I highlighted that space temp is 3K and Earth's pre-industrial temp was 288K. Hence 1,000ppm (0.1% of the atmosphere) heat up by 285K, so 1ppm heats up by ~0.285K. I think that proves there isn't a scaling problem with 50ppm not being enough to cause 3K of Climate Change. If you don't understand, that's on you.
I think my insult on Malthus was wasted, since you can't even spell it right.
Humour me and send me the data.
As for the trees, what I'm hearing is that a glacier was advancing for just under 10,000 years, and we managed to reverse 10,000 years of glacial growth in 200 years of human emissions. But I understand your point. In reality, the likelihood is that the forest was able to grow for a number of regional reasons -- firstly, the mountains would've been around 100m lower in altitude then, and secondly, there were likely regional factors affecting this leading to a localised increase in temperatures that allowed the forest to grow (in the same way the little ice age affected mostly the North Atlantic regions, but had a minimal effect on India and China). I'm no climate scientist, but I can tell you that temperature can and does vary locally (see the little ice age). Then, a few hundred or thousand years later, those local factors increasing temperature went away, which, along with increasing altitude due to tectonic activity, led the glacier to advance. That seems to explain it quite well, no? If you can provide evidence of these forests being found across the globe and being similar ages, that would lend you more credibility.
Humour me and send the site with the $5k paywall.

Fascinating. Every nation uses the Kelvin Scale in sciences, but I'm not aware of any nation that uses Kelvin for atmospheric temperature. No one feels the need to measure weather relative to absolute zero. Celsius is widely used in everyday life around the world and is the typical measurement used in climate science discussions.
The "paywall" requires membership for access. Essentially lifetime membership is $5k. Where do you live, I'll give you the name of potential sponsors in your country who can walk you through the process of accreditation to join. There are members in the former communist bloc, so I don't foresee any problems if you can submit digital copies of your masters or doctoral theses. That's not as big a problem these days as it was when we had to submit hard copies. I'll post a contact here, and once accepted we can communicate easier through those channels than this meme site.
Remember NASA has brought us colossal failures like Skylab. From your use of Kelvin, I assume there is no need to explain that satellite data is not yet accepted by science for establishment of weather records. That's considered widely known.
The trees described were at sea level in British Columbia. I have no idea where you come up with mountains being 100 m lower in elevation 10,000 years ago. Can you cite your sources for that degree of uplift, I'd be fascinated to learn more about that recent orogeny regardless of where it occurred.
I don't want to assume, but is it safe to say you hold the view that this planet is too fragile to sustain life? If factors don't remain in these precise, extremely tight, uniform and specific ranges such that the planet cannot withstand the addition of 50 ppm of CO2, which is essential for plant life, then evolution will run it's course and mass extinction is inevitable no matter what mankind does.
If that is the truth, then we should all live quite well and comfortably until our demise. Whatever evolves after us will be well suited for those future conditions.

As I specified, I'm using Kelvin because it is neither Fahrenheit nor Celsius. Please consider reading. I feel the need to measure relative to absolute zero because I'm measuring relative to 3K (average temp of space), so it gives a better sense of scale of just how much 1000ppm of greenhouse gas warms us up by. See the really great thing about Kelvin is 1K is 1C, so an increase of 2K is the same as the 2C most climate scientists talk about. I'm using Kelvin because it's easier to type. Anyway, a well-regarded Climate Scientist such as yourself shouldn't have any issues switching between temp scales anyway, should they?
UK. Out of curiosity, what was your thesis on?
NASA brought us colossal successes, like the moon landings, the ISS, Skylab (not entirely sure why you consider it a failure), Hubble, James Webb, the Space Shuttle and Curiosity. I'd genuinely love to see a peer-reviewed paper from a credible source on why satellite weather data is so unreliable. The NWS uses satellites, as I've shown you. I'd love to see your peer-reviewed argument on why satellites are useless for weather observation, but I suppose I'll be waiting for that one.
So a glacier was at sea level? Now that seems unusual for BC. Greenland and Antarctica sure. I'm afraid you'll have to send the name of the glacier, because I wasn't able to find any glaciers in BC, at sea level AND melting to reveal a 10,000yo primordial forest.
The thing about mountains is they grow. By around 1-2cm/year, providing it's by a fault line (0.02x10,000 = 200m, so 100m is a reasonable middle ground estimate). I assumed the glacier was in the mountains, but since it was a sea level glacier, I suppose that doesn't count for anything now. Still doesn't account for localised climate changes though.
The planet is not too fragile to sustain life. Even with Climate Change, life will go on. Don't know about human life, most species alive probably won't survive, but some will. The Earth has experienced mass extinctions before. The worst one, the Permian extinction or PTME, was actually likely caused by a runaway greenhouse effect, though even the volcanos that caused the PTME released greenhouse gases 10x slower than we are now. So we even have geological evidence that greenhouse gas emissions have the potential to wreck Earth's ecosystems.
The great thing about human actions is that we can prevent emissions. But I won't insult your intelligence, I'm sure you were already aware of that.

Hey Cracka, start a new comment, we eventually run out of the ability to respond to comments that go to the "flag" only option and miscommunication results.
First, never said I'm a climate scientist. I have done precision gas measurement, applied Gas Laws of physics on a daily and extensive basis, as well as chemistry, biology, botany, geology and other sciences (and comprehensive college level study of the sciences). Have extensive experience in statistics and probability, and critical data analysis, I've study patterns, trends, trajectory, outliers, anomalies and other variables for my working life. That said, I wrote a series of papers on critical analysis of climate claims and applied genuine science to their hysteria.
The claim it's never been warmer is a lie. Geology proves it has been much warmer and much cooler in the past. For their claims to hold water you have to view the atmosphere as monolithic and static, it is never monolithic, nor is it ever static, it is always turbulent and fluid. There is no atmospheric constant state. Dr. Roy Spencer, University of Alabama, former NASA climatologist presented research that proves water vapor has more impact on temperature than CO2. Botany indicates that 350 ppm is nearing a level too low to sustain plant life, but so what, 350 ppm is an artificial standard. Good job on Kelvin, lets compare apples to oranges to monkeys. No one in the climate debate uses Kelvin, it isn't necessary to add 273 to a Celsius reading, because absolute zero has no bearing on the fraud of climate change, nor does it have any bearing on the boiling temperature of water. Try this for fun, ask a climate hysterical if the sun has anything to do with the temperature of earth. The responses I got fueled my questioning the deception- the sun has nothing to do with the temperature of earth they claim. Take away the sun and your absolute zero measurements come into play.
So why do I say these things? You are an intelligent person, but tragically deceived. Maybe one thing I say here will open your eyes to the fact that eating bugs instead of animal protein will somehow save the planet from something that isn't even happening is not the truth. Maybe you'll look at the history of Africa and see a continent full of natural resources, yet politically manipulated by Malthusian politics. Nah. I see the same pattern here as all climate screamers, you going to argue for it no matter how foolish it is. Kind of like a 14 year old holding tight to

Oh BTW, cracka, you do know that CO2 is aways changing to separate carbon and oxygen molecules, right? Nah! Once it's CO2 it's CO2 forever.

the belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. You don't really care about the truth. Methane is even less than minimal CO2, and it seeps to the surface of the entire of earth from underground coal seams, oil and gas deposits and peat beds. Getting rid of every cow on earth won't change the climate either. Oh another one I love, plants can tell the difference between natural and manmade CO2 and reject manmade CO2, acky acky pooh pooh. I can only laugh at the entire charade.