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.
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.
Being Devil's Advocate here (obviously), but I'm talking about the occupation (which wasn't entirely clear) and it's severely destabilizing effect and boosting of anti-american sentiment in the region and, by extension, boosting of Islamic Extremism
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
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.
