Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Moltres wrote

4

daniel wrote

And the list for who funds its promotion? Is there a computer large enough to contain it?

−1

Moltres wrote

Very good, Daniel! You're able to keep your previous believes despite evidence of the contrary, so scientist of you!

I just want you to know that you're a very good skeptic and very capable thinker, not at all a contrarian. It doesn't matter that your beliefs align with the establishment you hate so much, not at all. So keep it up sir/madam and godspeed.

2

daniel wrote

That's the thing about predictions, making more of them does not increase the accuracy, only the confidence. It's astonishing to see increased confidence after repeated failures of accuracy. Ignoring the hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands of years of irrefutable geological records which demonstrate both much higher and much lower temperatures during times when CO2 levels are both much higher and much lower than they are presently doesn't seem to bother you or many others. Is it some logical fallacy in your thinking which allows you to ignore clear and overwhelming evidence contrary to your hypothesis or have you just seen so many predictions that your confidence in them is that high that you are unwilling to see the lack of accuracy.

0

[deleted] wrote

2

daniel wrote

There have been several periods of glaciation over the past 800,000 years. That is universally accepted. The CO2 records throughout that time does not correlate at all with the cyclical cooling and warming of record. A reasonable person can look at the data (of which there is massive amounts) and conclude that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate, furthermore its impact, contribution and sensitivy are small as is its composition of the atmosphere. Beyond that, the only true objective source global atmosphereic temperature data and to a lesser degree surface data is from satellites. There are numerous factors involved with surface temperature measurment integrity, such as the urban heat island effect and beyond that there is problems with integrity of the selection of that data. Weather anomalies are occuring constantly and should not be used at all in any context to spin the climate. It's a major sample selection bias given prior to satellites almost all surface measurements are local, not global. It's irresponsible to make predictions like that which have no testable (reproducable) basis in reality.

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

−1

Moltres wrote

You seriously don't read, do you?

Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods. The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year.

2

daniel wrote

Of course there is correspondence but if you look closely at the data you will see that CO2 increases after the temperature, and not the other way around. Sea water, permafrost, ice, etc. release more disolved gases as its temperature rise.

−1

Moltres wrote

You don't need to reaffirm me that you don't read, nowhere in the data sheet they measure or talk about temperature.

2

daniel wrote

Never said they did, just pointing out that the ice core data is available if you wish to do the research.

−1

[deleted] wrote

0

daniel wrote

A random GIF from a climate change org site is not a substitute for terrabytes of actual numerical data. CO2 is not the causative agent. You will see other gases concentrations increase with increased temperature as well, moreover you see wide swings in temperature over long periods of time where CO2 levels remain relatively high. When temperatures spike, more disolved gases are freed up, those gases take longer to get resequestered back into storage. They are still just trace gases, concentrations so low and diffuse that they are measured in ppm.

−1

[deleted] wrote

0

daniel wrote

Note, the data for nitrous oxide and methane also share the same trend. How shocking. I bet if you find one for argon you'll see the same thing. Surely you don't want to propose argon is the primary driver of the glaciation, despite its concentration being greater than CO2? If you are looking for data, that sites got plenty. Pick your poison. A good place to start is the 4000 years of temperature data, and cross referencing that with last 4000 of disolved gases from whereever you want. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/reports/location?dataTypeId=7&search=true

−1

Moltres wrote

Could it be that methane and nitrous oxide are greenhouse gases as well? And that when one increases it creates a feedback loop that also raises the others (and temperature)? Could this be the reason why they correlate with each other across the record?

Why does it hurt so much to think?

2

daniel wrote

because the data doesn't coincide with that hypothesis. the dissolved trace gases follow the temperature, not the other way around.

−1

daniel wrote

The Sun is the primary driver of the climate, trace gases are not. The education system has failed in raising a generation of critical thinkers. The Earth does not revolve around the Sun, it revolves around the gravitational center of the solar system which is influenced by the orbit of the planets. Those planets also have most of the angular momentum of the solar system, their periodic (cyclical) actions influence fluctuations in the activity of the Sun and thus the climate on Earth. The Sun also has internal cyclical mechanisms the manifest in fluctuations in solar activity, which also influence climate on Earth. Space weather and solar angular momentum are much more reliable predictors of climate than are trace gases, which are only useful after the fact.

−1

Moltres wrote

Why is earth hotter than the moon?

3

daniel wrote

The moon reaches 260 degrees farenheight in the sunlight, but surely with all the CO2 we're producing on Earth that'll be a cool evening in just a few short years right?

−1

[deleted] wrote

0

daniel wrote

right, but Argon is also increasing, as are other trace gases. both the increases and decreases in temp (reglaciation) proceed their corresponding increase/decrease in gases, not the other way around.

0