[rkrisztian]

It's still what I consider true, and I stated my sources, then you flagged it. The Earth is coming out of an ice age. This time, I properly stated my sources from the start, and you still attack me with your sense of truth. Which may not be the truth.

Edit: Mods, please flag this commenter!

[Joel_Mckay]

The ice core gas samples go back thousands of years, and cover ice ages. The algae fossils taken from core samples of the earths deep ocean sediment go back even further.

There is data that reaches back to a pre-human time where the world was indeed very different, and if you go far enough into the past CO2 levels were extremely high. However, the planets environment also looked very different in that period.

The reason people know fossil fuels are primarily responsible is the radioactive isotope mix of carbon versions differ from what should normally be seen on the earths surface. If it was a natural process, than this would not have occurred or matched the industrialization trend data in the ice core and recent direct atmospheric data.

The world is full of folks that cherry pick data sources to obscure reality. Yet there are scientists that present verifiable facts, and only PR companies seem to think there is some sort of argument over the implications. =3

[rkrisztian]

Continuing my previous comment, to address that:

> There is data that reaches back to a pre-human time where the world was indeed very different, and if you go far enough into the past CO2 levels were extremely high. However, the planets environment also looked very different in that period.

Yes it is true that in the history of the Earth, CO2 levels were the highest during the first few hundred million years (5000 to 7000 ppm), see this image:

https://youtu.be/chDcDyG4uLQ?t=352

But this image also shows in large scale what really matters: dinosaurs could live when the CO2 concentration was 2500 ppm! What we are experiencing now is what happened 300 million years ago: the CO2 levels were naturally increasing even before the era of dinosaurs. We are currently in an ice age based on the graph. So why is it warming today then? We’re coming out of a mini ice age on a smaller scale, see this pic:

https://youtu.be/chDcDyG4uLQ?t=692

The Earth naturally experiences warmer and colder times. And the effects of it are what you just described. Like it or not, the causes are natural and we can’t do much about it. Except one thing: restoring more forests, to retain water, and absorb more sunlight. But you can’t prevent the arctic ice from melting. You can just get used to it:

https://youtu.be/chDcDyG4uLQ?t=3693

The politicians are trying to defend against 1 or 2 Celsius degrees of change, when Central Europe is heading towards a mediterranean climate just because of Earth’s ever-changing tilt and orbit. Eventually we might see +50 degrees just because of that. So rather, the goal should be adaptation.

[Joel_Mckay]

"the causes are natural and we can’t do much about it"

This statement ignores hundreds of thousands of years of verifiable trend data, that showed C02 levels steadily declining until people began burning fossil fuels (mined coal) early in the industrial age. Global energy retention through greenhouse effects is only a slight change, and we are not going to see Venus like conditions.

Additionally, the radioactive isotopes of carbon are verifiable anywhere. The fossil fuel industry is provably the father of the CO2 issue. Notably, there is a theoretical oil burn-rate limit the planet could handle sustainably, but greed and desperation drives people to consume around 3 to 12 planets worth of resources. The key rate of burn was important at one time, and some policies did include reduced oil consumption as part of draft policy.

You may also find recent tree core CO2 data too, that provides a living history of the man-made changes in our atmosphere. That also matches the other data sources within the margin of error.

"The politicians are trying to defend against 1 or 2 Celsius degrees of change"

That is actually not much a of a safety margin, as at around >3.4'C we should begin to see cascade environmental collapse. Where it gets so much worse than algal blooms, storms, and floods/fires.

"The Earth naturally experiences warmer and colder times."

Except the perturbations in 11 year solar cycles and ten thousand year ice ages don't really change the trend data very much over long time scales. Only WWII caused a brief dip in CO2 concentration uptick with oil use.

Oil is important for countless reasons (medicine/plastics/chemistry), but it is irresponsible and wasteful to burn it in excess. It is foolish to manufacture imaginary controversy, as zero credible scientists have ever looked at the data and concluded it was nonsense.

Please don't cite YT as a data source, as it is for entertainment purposes only.

Have a glorious day =3

"Michael Shermer: Baloney Detection Kit":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNSHZG9blQQ

[defrost]

Sorry chap, I've neither flagged nor downvoted your comment (or rather I did downvote it and then reversed that in an effort to preserve your position, which apparently no one is buying).

There are a number of sources that claim to counter or disprove the central AGW position as outlined in the IPCC reports that are regularly updated.

Having a source isn't an argument, persuading others in the climate, biosphere, and geophysical domains is where it's at .. so far that's over 90% for, few against.

Here's a decent overview of Milankovitch cycles that acknowledges their link to cyclic changes in global climate .. that's not been denied in the AGW climate arguments, just that they're not significantly at play in the recent sharp changes over the past centry. https://skepticalscience.com/Milankovitch.html

My own background is pure|applied mathematics with a transition to exploration geophysics working for mineral resource exploration and some oil and gas application, with later work summerising the state of global resource knowledge for investors.

If you can find the sources that support your position you should with a modicum of effort find papers that address those claims.

A very good start is the first broadly accepted paper that set out the effect and scale of CO2 added to the atmosphere and flow on water vapor feedback .. most things flow on from there and it's a matter of comparing other factors (actual orbital variation, actual solar flucuations, etc) against the predicatable rise in trapped energy as a result of more insulation.

Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity (1967) - Syukuro Manabe, Richard Wetherald