Climate Change

[KW]

Explained
Electricity and Climate Change

FYI : I teach graduate level course on climatology. Perhaps you should take one?

That supports my point.

The earth warms and cools in cycles and small increases in CO2 levels have nothing to do with it. In fact, historically CO2 level increases follow warming, they don't create it.

You also help solidify my point about climate change paranoia beling political and a tool of the left.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That supports my point.

The earth warms and cools in cycles and small increases in CO2 levels have nothing to do with it. In fact, historically CO2 level increases follow warming, they don't create it.

You also help solidify my point about climate change paranoia beling political and a tool of the left.

Sorry, but the claim of CO2 following warming has been refuted as well.

https://cen.acs.org/articles/87/i51/Comes-First-CO2-Heat.html

 

[SkepticThinker]

Cool! I used to argue against climate change, but I have this terrible habit of reading the evidence presented against me.

I had to award @KW an award for shooting his own foot because an article he linked refuted his own claim with the explanation that I was ready to use.

Hey, me too! The evidence changed my mind. That's when I took the time to finally look at it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Last year we had record heat here. It II s not apt to happen every year, but it will happen more often.

Here to, and the temperature changes from day to day are nuts. Like yesterday was 28C and today is 8C.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That supports my point.

The earth warms and cools in cycles and small increases in CO2 levels have nothing to do with it. In fact, historically CO2 level increases follow warming, they don't create it.

You also help solidify my point about climate change paranoia beling political and a tool of the left.

This is an outdated (and inaccurate) talking point that was debunked years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is an outdated (and inaccurate) talking point that was debunked years ago.

Like creationists they have run out of ideas. Meanwhile they will run from understanding simple ideas that are not controversial and that are often not taught correctly. The Greenhouse Effect is a good example. It is poorly taught at most public schools and there really is no excuse for that.

 

[KW]

This is an outdated (and inaccurate) talking point that was debunked years ago.

Is there any merit to the studies that show that historical CO2 levels lag behind temperature, and not lead them?



Climate scientist Peter Hildebrand, Director of the Earth Science Division at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, says yes, there's merit to those studies. In the pre-industrial age, the CO2 response to temperature was that the temperature would go up and CO2 would go up. Or if the temperature went down, CO2 would go down. And the reason for that is when the temperature went up, the whole biosphere revved up and emitted CO2, and we had more CO2 in the atmosphere. So we understand that process.

 

[KW]

Like creationists they have run out of ideas. Meanwhile they will run from understanding simple ideas that are not controversial and that are often not taught correctly. The Greenhouse Effect is a good example. It is poorly taught at most public schools and there really is no excuse for that.

Is there any merit to the studies that show that historical CO2 levels lag behind temperature, and not lead them?



Climate scientist Peter Hildebrand, Director of the Earth Science Division at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, says yes, there's merit to those studies. In the pre-industrial age, the CO2 response to temperature was that the temperature would go up and CO2 would go up. Or if the temperature went down, CO2 would go down. And the reason for that is when the temperature went up, the whole biosphere revved up and emitted CO2, and we had more CO2 in the atmosphere. So we understand that process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is there any merit to the studies that show that historical CO2 levels lag behind temperature, and not lead them?



Climate scientist Peter Hildebrand, Director of the Earth Science Division at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, says yes, there's merit to those studies. In the pre-industrial age, the CO2 response to temperature was that the temperature would go up and CO2 would go up. Or if the temperature went down, CO2 would go down. And the reason for that is when the temperature went up, the whole biosphere revved up and emitted CO2, and we had more CO2 in the atmosphere. So we understand that process.

You have to read the whole link that I provided.

 

[We Never Know]

We can tell that man added CO2 to the atmosphere by the change in percentages of the C13/C12 ratios.

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans? | NOAA Climate.gov

In addition, fossil fuels are the only source of carbon consistent with the isotopic fingerprint of the carbon present in today’s atmosphere. That analysis indicates it must be coming from terrestrial plant matter, and it must be very, very old. These and other lines of evidence leave no doubt that fossil fuels are the primary source of the carbon dioxide building up in Earth’s atmosphere.

Hence the phrase "more than likely".
Plus that phrase helps me avoid having to argue with a denier lol

 

[sayak83]

That supports my point.

The earth warms and cools in cycles and small increases in CO2 levels have nothing to do with it. In fact, historically CO2 level increases follow warming, they don't create it.

You also help solidify my point about climate change paranoia beling political and a tool of the left.

Care to explain how the explanation and the article I quoted supports your point?

The earth's atmosphere and surface ocean waters are warming because of the excess heat trapped by CO2 emitted by humans. So world over the surface temperatures are increasing. Antarctica is the lone partial exception (temporarily) because Antarctica is surrounded by ocean waters coming from the deep where the warming effect has not penetrated yet.
How does this support your views?

You also tried to give the argument that historically CO2 follows temperature rise. I refuted that point as well in the earlier thread. Remember?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hence the phrase "more than likely".
Plus that phrase helps me avoid having to argue with a denier lol

You should know by now that scientists will not say "proven". But if you want to go by the legal standard of "prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then yes, but that definition it is proven that the carbon increase is from fossil fuels.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That supports my point.

The earth warms and cools in cycles and small increases in CO2 levels have nothing to do with it. In fact, historically CO2 level increases follow warming, they don't create it.

You also help solidify my point about climate change paranoia beling political and a tool of the left.

Ah huh! Tell that to the Permian flora and fauna.

 

[rational experiences]

Basic science. Earth owns four seasons. Earth is iced. Ice renewed itself as a cycle maintained its presence. Melt was part of the season.

Seasons change not controlled.

Unnatural melt hence is a warning as natural melt is seasonal.

If signs of a greater melt is occurring humans are warned earth is demonstrating an unnatural balance as seasonal balances were exact.

Science knows earth once hadn't owned ice. So they don't own any data about planet earths natural status.

So then science has to look at life. Our highest biological presence is healthy human. Healthy human and life span.

To say advice human on earth after ice age.

Human life says it's dying sacrificed destroyed unhealthy was how science defined before that human invention technology was causing it. Pretty basic human advised.

As we always knew human science technology invention was evil why are you arguing today. You know you've caused it inventor.

 

[sayak83]

That supports my point.

The earth warms and cools in cycles and small increases in CO2 levels have nothing to do with it. In fact, historically CO2 level increases follow warming, they don't create it.

You also help solidify my point about climate change paranoia beling political and a tool of the left.

Just in case you have forgotten, here is the refutation of this point about CO2 following temperature.
CO2 Alarmism