- Re: All true, Ian. But are those data about the long descent of CO2, and the ancient temperature fluc Archived Message
Posted by mack
on February 27, 2020, 8:42 pm, in reply to "All true, Ian. But are those data about the long descent of CO2, and the ancient temperature fluc"
|
and the ancient temperature fluctuations, clearly having no visible relationship with the CO2 variation Yes they do, because it's a combination of factors including CO2 levels, not just co2 on its own. Heating or cooling effects are read in conjunction with other environmental factors such as volcanic activity (release of CO2 + particulate injection (sulphur)) and sun activity which is measurable via strontium isotope analysis. Much higher levels of co2 were in the atmosphere during times of glaciation, which seems to contradict the idea that co2 = heating, but these are explained by the relationship between these factors (lower sun activity at that time), so it's not just as simple as more Co2 = higher temperatures, but an amalgamation of different conditions. At the current time, more co2 does equal higher temperatures when the other factors are taken into consideration. are the assertions that he makes true despite his own personal iffyness? Well, I rebutted a few of his assertions off the top of my head, and you don't need a degree in plant pathology to find that he's talking out of his arse on that. (and the notion that increased cloud production = cooling which = bollocks) sometimes a whole lot hotter than now, and with considerably higher CO2 levels, yet life thriving mightily even then. Yes, and much higher sea levels, which are easily identified as an issue for human 'civilisation'; and times considerably cooler than now (widespread glaciation) with a much higher level of co2 present, but that's because there are other factors driving climate, like said above. People making claims like this guy are just ignoring the other factors involved. Ian's revelation seems to clearly explain why. |