I'm gonna assume you haven't read my second comment. I'm also gonna assume you haven't met a climate scientist, since climate change is one of the most widely accepted phenomena in the scientific community. You have yet to provide me your paper that's so well regarded, a single qualification that qualifies you to challenge the scientific consensus, a single climate scientist who agrees with you that might've informed your opinion, a single piece of evidence against climate change I haven't been able to refute or a reason why satellite data is unreliable.
If you want to keep parroting what Exxonmobil, Chevron, Gazprom, Saudi Aramco and Shell want you to think and still somehow delude yourself that you're the "questioning underdog" for being on the same side as some of the richest, most immoral companies in the world and against the entire scientific community, then go right ahead. But try to find some piece of evidence (just one) anywhere that can categorically prove climate change is not happening, or that it wont be that bad, or that we cant do anything about it, and once you've found it, present it to me and maybe then you can rest in peace knowing that, just this once, the trillion dollar company actually did have everyone's best interests at heart, and didn't just want to line the pockets of its shareholders.
anything. I'm saying what 99.9% of climate scientists are saying, not what some climate doomer on the internet said. If you mean to project these internet doomer beliefs onto me (which I truly, sincerely hope you aren't), you're just strawmanning. I haven't said a single one of those things.
I don't know why you decided to bring Methane into this debate, since its effect on the Climate is minimal compared to CO2 at the moment. Each year, around 600m tonnes of methane are released by both humans and non human sources. That's 4 orders of magnitude (over 10,000 times) less than the CO2 humans alone release each year. So I don't think I need to tell you that I don't believe in killing all the cows to reduce emissions, nor that we need to eat bugs forever, nor that Africa is manipulated by Malthusian politics. Africa is a continent exploited by American and European corporations, as well as the French, Russian and Chinese Governments, not a dead English Economist, but that's not an area we need to go into right now.
Your argument about CO2 changing to C and O2 and back again is just plain wrong. CO2 does undergo thermal decomposition, true, but that requires energy, for the same reason burning hydrocarbons releases energy. The amount of energy needed is 1.6MJ for 44g of CO2. To do that for a tonne of CO2 would require roughly 36.4GJ, and to do that for annual CO2 emissions would be 1.3 EJ in a year, or a constant power of 40GW for the entire year. For context, the entire UK generates 30GW. That is assuming perfect efficiency (which quite literally never happens), no energy needed to get the CO2 to where we want to react it, etc. For this reaction to happen naturally, temperature would need to exceed 1000C, which (though I'm no climate expert) I don't think happens too often.
I'm really glad you brought up water vapour. Yes, it has a very significant warming effect. I'm not sure if it warms more than CO2, but that's besides the point. Water vapour gets into the atmosphere by evaporation, and leaves the atmosphere through condensation. Basic stuff. It won't surprise you to know that more water evaporates when it's hotter, and less water condensates when it's hotter. That's what we mean by a runaway greenhouse effect. CO2 emissions may only increase temperatures by a degree, but that then means more water evaporates and less condenses, so more water in the atmosphere. This causes further heating, meaning more water vapour, so more heating, etc. Runaway warming.
If you aren't a climate scientist, why are you speaking with such authority against the consensus in the Climate Science Community? Surely if you're applying "genuine science", wouldn't you have to be, you know, an actual climate scientist?
I never said it's never been warmer, but I am so glad you brought up geology. The following values are estimates due to the nature of geology. The early Devonian period (400mya) saw average surface temperatures of 16C, though this would later cool to around 11C in the mid Devonian (390mya) thanks to the growing of forests absorbing CO2, then went back up to 16C in the late Devonian (370mya, though not as much evidence for this increase). At the end of the Devonian, the Earth then cooled into the Late Paleozoic icehouse, which saw CO2 concentrations as low as 180ppm, huge glaciers and much more. You may see this and say the Climate changes, life goes on, so there is nothing to worry about. These changes took place over the course of millions of years. 5C over 10m years is 0.0001C over 200 years. Even these changes saw extinctions, notably Stromatoporoid sponges, which went extinct in the Late Devonian in part due to high temperatures. A more apt example would be the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event 250mya, which I've already mentioned. The most common theory for this is a runaway greenhouse effect caused by the Siberian traps releasing upwards of 5 quadrillion tonnes of CO2 (maybe even as high as 12 quadrillion) over around 40,000 years (This works out to an average of 100 billion tonnes/year, and humans emit around 30-40 trillion annually), leading to warming of between 8-12C depending on location. As for your CO2 claim, the Carboniferous period saw CO2 levels drop as low as 180ppm, and plants certainly didn't go extinct then.
You're right, nobody in the climate debate uses Kelvin, but nobody in the climate debate questions why 50ppm of CO2 cause warming exceeding 1C. I've been trying to explain that to you. Kelvin seemed to me to be the best way to do that since it doesn't go negative to describe space's temperature, hence better puts into scale the temp difference between space and Earth. If you prefer Celsius, just ask. No need to accuse.
Who said the Sun doesn't affect the Earth's temp? I can guarantee it wasn't a climate scientist. I also don't know who said plants reject manmade CO2, but it certainly wasn't a Biologist. I don't care what the hystericals are saying, and the fact that they are wrong doesn't change
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.
