[Smushman]

(Dissapointed you used your junk account but I can't blame you...) I was wrong here kasey.

A chart showing we have exceeded routinely previous highs over human existing history would be pretty convincing. And not on a human recorded scale (300 years), nor a geolgical scale (earth is around 4 billion years), but a homo sapien scale (2 million years).

You could use rocks, plant life, animal life as evidence and anything else that would logically chart it.

[kasey_junk]

Here you go: https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/climaterecord

[Smushman]

This stands out:

The most recent estimates suggest that at times between 5.2 and 2.6 million years ago (during the Pliocene), the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reached between 330 and 400 ppm. During those periods, global temperatures were 2-3°C higher than now, and sea levels were higher than now by 10 – 25 metres.

And the following:

Atmospheric CO2 is currently at a level of 390 ppm.

-----

So I take this to mean, it has not been seen before naturally - the current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide - and a non-associated temperature change (and the associated sea level rise - which I personally would expect should rise in the event of any rising temperatures - I don't need evidence that ice melts at higher temps).

I take this inability to prove that to mean further it is hard to observe the change temperatures in short time frames (think annually), but we can expect it would happen over time with our associated CO2 level, or we may be already in the middle of it and not know it.

Meaning the associated problems (a significant rollover type of change) may occur in the generational terms (100 years).

Do I have the gist of the main thrust?

If so - then the logical conclusion being presented, is that the line is so fine - we may cross it without knowing it.

[tpm]

It's already above 400 ppm.

[Smushman]

My further response, distanced from what I feel sure is a good analysis (to save my points).

This is a good convincer - but there is a lot of hyperbole, political theft, and outright exaggerations being painted out there; not to mention previous abuse of the scientific method to push extreme claims in previous papers. These things hurt the cause.

And further, putting people into a bucket of trolls when they are only looking for information does the same thing. Why would healthy people open to debate do that? And on Hacker News?

You have convinced me further; I am more open minded. And I will look for more ways I can justify supporting this conclusion to be sure; but I can't put everything behind such a negatively based bias and effort to convince me. There are too many charlatans to jump in with both feet and too much at risk with blind support.