And this, your claim is completely without basis. As I said, you said something false and I provided the data. You have been unable to counter that with data. Let me know if that changes, but you said something false and got caught as it stands.
I wasn’t here 10 years ago but certainly had the debate elsewhere. It is interesting that over those past 10 years, CO2 keeps rising, and temperature keeps rising, largely as predicted. What we know: - CO2, methane and even after vapor are greenhouse gasses. This is a fact. - CO2 levels are higher than they have been in tens of thousands of years (maybe hundreds of thousands, I forget ) - water vapor, a short cycling greenhouse gas, concentration tends to increase when air temperature rises, which compounds the effect of CO2, a long term cycling greenhouse gas. - CO2 has rapidly increased the past 150 years. Temperature has also. - the incremental CO2 man puts in the atmosphere highly correlates to the co2 rise. - there are other causes of temperature rise. But none of them can explain the increases in temperature over the last 150 years. At this point it is pretty straightforward. The more complicated question is what we do about it.
It has absolutely nothing to do with your claim. You claimed a general effect about 150,000 years ago. That video deals with a specific piece of data from less than 10,000 years ago. Your claim on 150,000 is unsupported by your video, which doesn't address your claim.
I appreciate you putting this together fairly succinctly. Should I delay a real estate purchase in the middle keys?
It has to do with the fake Global Warming. It have everything to do with my claim as you say. It's related to the last AGW debates we had, but it stands on it's own merit and must be debated.
Okay, explain how your erroneous claim that there wasn't a correlation between CO2 and temperature 150,000 years ago is related to this video about local changes in temperature from less than 10,000 years ago.
I can’t help you there. I’d say if one were contemplating buying a near sea level property near a coast, I would only buy it if I could afford to lose it.
Jergen Steffensen (Scientist in vid) would take exception to his work being used in an attempt to disprove AGW
Do you ever get tired of being wrong? You seem to be very good at it. Must come from all the practice you get.
Nope! He's doing his job as a member of the CO2 Coalition, a group funded by energy executives and other to promote the claim that carbon dioxide is a beneficial gas. I am sure his job is to manipulate the folks like rick into propagating his propaganda.
Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia It doesn’t sound like there is any debate about arctic temperatures being higher at that point. From evidence they have the temperature increases were more modest over much of the globe. There were some significant sea level rises. There is some speculation the deforestation may have played a role. Global Warming: 8,000 Years Ago
A guy got a cancer diagnosis. He didn't want to believe it, so he consulted another 100 physicians. All said the original physician was correct...he had cancer. The guy, having the mentality of Rick, decided to follow the advice of the first physician and do nothing. He quickly died. So will our planet if the Ricks of the world keep us on our current path.
Global warming threads used to be common around here. Now they are relatively rare. Other than a few extreme holdouts, everyone agrees it's happening and why it's happening.
I don't really know the guy. I just clicked around this morning and saw that he had written some stuff that talked about the negative impacts of emissions... I'd be interested in some context to that video.
Agree on that, one issue I think most have is forcing "green initiatives" when we have India and China doing zero. It would cost Trillions of dollars and even if the US did all that India and China will do zero and just increase what we decrease. Not sure of a good solution. Not saying the US shouldn't try to go expand solar, wind, hydro and especially nuclear to limit our reliance on fossil fuels, because we should. Just don't want the US being relied on as the leader(paying the most money) to something while some of the worst offenders do zero.
I was wrong, Jorgen Steffensen seems to be a reputable scientist. It seems the CO2 Coalition may have edited his video out of context. Thank you for challenging me. Here's an article with some quotes from him about the threats: Humans experimenting with climate's 'playing nice' » Yale Climate Connections Here's an interesting video describing his thoughts on the risks of dramatic climate change due to rising CO2 mentioned in the article above. Inside the Experiment: Abrupt Change and Ice Cores
I was skeptical of anthropogenic climate change at first. I remember the pop magazines reporting that there was a coming ice age in the 70s. I was skeptical of Covid being that big of a deal. I remembered the swine flu hysteria when Carter was president. I was skeptical that Russia would invade Ukraine it made no sense to me. Being a skeptic I think is positive but at some point the science and the facts win out.
Being the leader in green energy will only make us stronger economically and politically in the long run. Doesn't matter what China and India do.
