- Re: actual real data points. How do we decide? Where is the authoritative information? Archived Message
Posted by Ian M
on March 1, 2020, 12:05 pm, in reply to "actual real data points. How do we decide? Where is the authoritative information?"
|
Here's what Mack said again: '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. [...] 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.' - https://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/msg/1582836144.html Related Skeptical Science pages (a good stop-off point generally for challenging denier assertions): https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm Phys.org article: https://phys.org/news/2019-07-carbon-dioxide-climate-acontroversy.html Or see this video cited in Moore's de-smog profile ( https://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-moore ) which touches on most of the main points: I think scientists deserve respect for the many lifetimes' worth of work that have been put into formulating, testing and verifying these theories. That doesn't mean reflexively accepting everything they say as gospel, but perhaps give them the benefit of the doubt over industry-funded trolls cobbling together information from dubious sources to make absurd gaslighting claims like 'CO2 is good for the Earth' and 'we are the salvation of life, not its destroyer.' Otherwise we might as well keep an open mind about gravity, evolution or the curvature of the earth. cheers, I |