!agree

self-replicating idea

that's why there is a political center; because the left and right cannot talk to each other.

Quoting oneself is often a sign of an enlarged sense of self importance. @Scribblehatch

also noticed that. Fascinating!

you can demand whatever you like, it rarely means you will get it.

I'm guessing you're quite young?

don't need to. stop making demands.

I'll rephrase: I suggest you stop making demands.

better?

everything is hate speech these days

*le sigh*

I feel naked without mine, can I have them back please, mods.

yup

I personally think Jesus may have been heir to the Hasmonean throne.

Badgers

Fallacy.

Done.

Explain how historic levels of atmospheric CO2 did not contribute towards runaway warming. Then I might consider debating.

I'm specifically talking about periods in history when atmospheric CO2 was at levels ~1500ppm

Carboniferous period will do. As far as I can see the contention of climate scientists is that increased atmospheric CO2 will lead, via the greenhouse effect, to Earth becomming more like Venus.

if this were true, Earth would already look like Venus.

~1500ppm

not in terms of atmospheric compostition, no. But that's not the contention.

"atmospheric CO2 levels >400ppm (current) will lead to catastrophic temperature rise."

that's the contention, is it not?

it's also a fallacy that "Venus is hot because it's atmosphere is 96% CO2"

Venus is hot because it's atmosphere is much thicker than Earth's

the rate of temp change does not explain why 1500ppm would not cause further (increasing) temp rise

where's the runaway greenhouse effect?

whilst CO2 is correlated to temp quite well, data clearly shows that CO2 increases as a result of increased global temp

not the other way round

CO2 is exhaust from animal life, higher stable temps mean more life.

plant cycle for captuuring CO2 is much slower to react and time between max plant biomass (governed by CO2 levels) and min plant biomass is muuch longer

it is a false equivalence to equate a greenhouse and Earth's atmosphere

our atmosphere is not a jar

a greenhouse retains heat because warm air inside cannot leave and equalise temp with the outside air

it's a lack of convection, nothing to do with radiation

atmospheric greenhouse effect is based on TSI values, yes?

it only calculates based on total solar irradiance

the greenhouse effect is all about radiated heat, yes?

well, it's wrong, as far as I can tell.

sure, but when doing small scale experiments they are concerned with very high CO2 levels

not 0.04%

secondarily

how can 3% (human produced CO2) of the total annual flux of CO2 be more potent than the natural 97%?

(3% of 0.04< 97% of 0.04)

how come temps were so high in the early industrial period (low CO2) and so cold in the late industrial period(high CO2)? (1940 vs 1969)

how come NASA and NOAA are having to resort to data modification?

only if you want to fit it to a model

data is data

this ^

go look at any Tony Heller yt video, he's been showing the data tampering for years

amazing what youu can find when youu take a copy of original data

homogenizing is something else that's laughable;; including low quality data does not increase precision

so they've added thousands of data points.... from airports!! 😂

urban heat islands

yeah, sure, that won't skew the data at all

don't have to

that's the beautiful thing, it's clear in the data itself

I've looked at both datasets

the later one has been modified

often with no oversight

tbqh I don't care about CO2 levels, it's irrelevant to me. I only care about temp records

it doesn't matter how accurate the data is, if it's coming from an airport or other urban heat island it is entirely irrelevant, not just low quality

Earth's atmosphere not small scale though

the temp data is

only in a container

on a small scale

it doesn't account for the multitude of variables in Earth's climate

it doesn't account for anything other than TSI

and even when it does that, climate science tells us that atmospheric CO2 is more powerful at driving our climate than the sun

it doesn't account for high energy particles

it doesn't account for magnetosphere effects

no.

assumption

milankovitch cycles

no

it was warm in the 1940s

when CO2 was low

it was cold in the 60's-70's

when CO2 was high

except the evidence of these periods is being changed or removed

rubbish

go look for yourself

if you can find an untainted source

there are emails between climate scientists talking about how problematic the 70's cold period is

and how they can massage the data to better fit the trend they want to show

I do, when they control the political landscape it's dangerous

you never adequately explained how high CO2 levels didn't lead to ever increasing temps

Carboniferous period had CO2 levels ~1500ppm and yet temp was 3~12 degrees higher

why did the high temps not lead to more CO2 and the runaway effect?

it doesn't matter how much time anything has to adapt, your contention is that CO2 produces a temp increase

why did this not occurr during the carboniferous and other high CO2 periods?

you think plants can grow faster than the sun can input energy into the atmosphere?

I don't

for plants to stop a net increase in temp they wouuld have to lock away CO2 at an alarming rate

especially at ~1500ppm

uuhhhh, isn't that what you call the greenhouse effect?