![global warming: the warning signs [944x711 - 312KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/hcn7sD.png){kind=link}
What are your thoughts on information such as this: https://files.catbox.moe/nbkf98.jpg
Edit: Here is the source from that picture(Large pdf 100+MB): https://files.catbox.moe/48iu10.pdf [Evidence-Based Climate Science. Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming; Author(s): Don Easterbrook]
I took this information from this site: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/14/nearly-140-scientific-papers-detail-the-minuscule-effect-co2-has-on-earths-temperature/
Who is right, and who is lying?
What are your thoughts on information such as this
That's for the last 160 years, those cooling/warming cycles are just 30 year blips, the real global cycles are longer than that. On the orde of 100,000 years
Like that "warming with no increase in CO2" is just a 20 year period, apparently due to "sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions", and subject to data collection variations. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/
how can a tiny amount of CO2 cause the temperature change
If it doesn't then you'll have to explain why the historical records closely correlate CO2 and temperature. What process independent of CO2 causes temperature changes. But it's true, this isn't a transparent correlation Remember in the modern age the variables are outside of any known climate model because it's not just 'vegetation cover = CO2', we've added lots of new variables by artificially removing vegetation, adding ozone, adding cows, adding CO2 from industry/concrete.
If you look at the tables tracking this, they are all different, so data appears to be collected in different ways. Even some effects like the medieval warming period wasn't global, that was just in Europe.
this appears to be the policy document on this: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf note from page 5 they list what is certain and what is just likely, because predicting where we are in the cycle is uncertain
What about the section on the past 425 million years? https://files.catbox.moe/9q8nzg.jpg https://files.catbox.moe/om8rko.jpg
What about the section on the past 425 million years?
Isn't that like trying to apply a physics model to the first picoseconds after the big bang? None of it makes sense to normal physics
You have a timeline that includes at least five extinction level events, it even labels the start of the modern climate age (Paleogene) at 66 million years ago
then CO2 was around 500ppm, which is slightly above our current 412ppm, back then the earth was all tropical
humans didn't appear until ~300,000 years ago, so the only thing that's relevant here is what kind of climate are we able to survive in?
which is this timeline
and here we see the regular cycles of CO2 and temperature.
now we could technically survive the Paleogene because it's 4 degC hotter, but probably not in the numbers we are at now, all our agriculture would change and it's likely large areas would revert to desert.
What is worrying is that this cyclical model isn't going to predict artificial increases in CO2 from industry, so the temperature might overshoot, particularly if the oceans warm up and create more water vapour
(post is archived)