| 400+ ppm is unprecedented since 800 000 years, and the effects are recognizable now by year-by-year changes that consistently break out of historical limits for both temperature and CO2 concentrations: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ That effects of CO2 concentrations are different now than hundred million years ago is covered in this link that was provided (please see how solar forcing have increased over millions of years, lowering greenhouse gas thresholds): https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm I see no reason to make false accusations and trying to bring the argument down to an emotional level. I suggest reading the links and debunking, and instead try to understand the scientific arguments first. This post of yours reflect an arrogance that do not belong on HN (my response was to show you what you projected from yourself - this, since facts only enrage some people): "May I suggest adopting a mental model where you care about accuracy more than outrage?" Instead, may I suggest you provide real arguments, instead of unsubstantiated nay-saying, and avoid resorting to pure rhetorical tactics? I say this because you provided nothing of value to the discussion. Instead even your own link supports current model precisions, contradicting your own claims: "There is good agreement between model simulations incorporating high CO2 concentrations and proxy evidence, providing strong support for the role of CO2 in maintaining the high temperatures of the Early Eocene." Sorry for bringing out more of the same, but that was the emotional part of the argument. But shouldn't really be necessary to show, regardless wether we agree or disagree about data and models. I present what experts in the field are saying (the references are more accurate, yes). Please see other posts in this parent thread for more nuances. Would love for real contradictory arguments to be presented! |