Could environmentalists agree on scientists and science

[Captain Caveman]

Here's a chart showing the data gathered by scientists for temperature and co2 for the last 570 million years. The cyan colour is temperature, the dark blue line is co2. Such data is gathered from fossils, ice cores, amber samples etc..

So you will notice that temperature and co2 tend to ignore one another, and you will see in the red circle as co2 increased, temperature dipped.

Now today's scientists have aligned temperature to co2, claiming that co2 is driving temperature.

So can our USMB climate gang detail what's happening in the scientific world. Were past scientists wrong/right, are current scientists wrong/right?

So if I go by science, the chart and earth's history tells me that co2 doesn't drive temperature, but (pardon the pun) in today's scientific climate, I'm a denier. So what's going wrong with science?

 

[Oddball]

The Goebbels warming grift is about the science of money laundering.

 

[luiza]

Climate differences / change are about Energy transfers .
Until the criminals can demonstrate that hugely increased transfers result from human activities, rather than from energy coming from the sun and the galaxy centre , they have a nonsense and zero proposition .

There is no such evidence .

 

[Crick]

Here's a chart showing the data gathered by scientists for temperature and co2 for the last 570 million years. The cyan colour is temperature, the dark blue line is co2. Such data is gathered from fossils, ice cores, amber samples etc..

View attachment 870894


So you will notice that temperature and co2 tend to ignore one another

They most assuredly are NOT ignoring one another. If you can't see the correlation there, you've got your eyes literally or metaphorically (or both) closed.

and you will see in the red circle as co2 increased, temperature dipped.

Yes, but that makes it the outlier. Such behavior occurs no where else. So what is your point?

Now today's scientists have aligned temperature to co2, claiming that co2 is driving temperature.

CO2 and temperature ARE aligned, throughout history. CO2 can drive temperature and is driven by temperature. THAT is the claim and it is a claim supported by some very fundamental science.

So can our USMB climate gang detail what's happening in the scientific world.

I have looked up the Jurasic-Cretacieous transition and it is not clear. There is discussion of meteorite impacts, volcanism and large scale rifting. You seem to believe it's important. What have you found was its cause?

Were past scientists wrong/right, are current scientists wrong/right?

You mean the scientists of today vs the scientists of the Jurasic-Cretaceous transition? Warming increases CO2. Increased CO2 producs warming. Those are essentially established FACTS.

So if I go by science, the chart and earth's history tells me that co2 doesn't drive temperature

If you first learn some science and learn how to read a simple graph, you will see there IS a correlation between CO2 and temperature. The oddity at the JC transition is an outlier, but the system is complex and I'm not in the business of apologizing for reality.

, but (pardon the pun) in today's scientific climate, I'm a denier. So what's going wrong with science?

Nothing. The problem is yours.

 

[petro]

They use the false god of computer simulation forcasting.

Yet the ones pushing the narrative somehow can't get themselves to follow their own demands of the rest of us.

It really comes down to, there are only so many pieces of the pie, and you aren't invited to sit at the table.

 

[Captain Caveman]

They most assuredly are NOT ignoring one another. If you can't see the correlation there, you've got your eyes literally or metaphorically (or both) closed.

You need to look at the chart that I posted.

 

[ding]

You need to look at the chart that I posted.

It won't make a difference. That's like asking a cheerleader to explain football.

 

[Crick]

You need to look at the chart that I posted.

I have. You need to look at a few more. I am not going to bother sourcing these. The problem in your graph is that the further back one looks, the less and less accuracy and resolution is available to determine temperature and CO2. And the Younger Dryas is an outlier and very likely the result of a singular event: large scale volcanism, catastrophic rifting or asteroid impact. Here's how things work in the real world, where temperature and CO2 are tightly correlated:

 

[Captain Caveman]

I have. You need to look at a few more. I am not going to bother sourcing these. The problem in your graph is that the further back one looks, the less and less accuracy and resolution is available to determine temperature and CO2. And the Younger Dryas is an outlier and very likely the result of a singular event: large scale volcanism, catastrophic rifting or asteroid impact. Here's how things work in the real world, where temperature and CO2 are tightly correlated:


View attachment 871313

View attachment 871314

View attachment 871315

View attachment 871316

View attachment 871317

Graphs and data based on a few decades and/or a few hundred thousand years mean diddly squat to the earth. Go into a geology class and spout that timespan, they will laugh their testicles off at you.

 

[Crick]

Graphs and data based on a few decades and/or a few hundred thousand years mean diddly squat to the earth. Go into a geology class and spout that timespan, they will laugh their testicles off at you.

We're not talking geology here numb nuts. This is BASIC chemistry.

 

[Captain Caveman]

We're not talking geology here numb nuts. This is BASIC chemistry.

That's why retard, you're stupid enough to believe the sky is falling. Governments need bakes like you to fall for their taxes.

So you don't accept the chart, you're a science denier.

Please explain why 146 million years ago temperature fell and co2 increased by using your daily data graphs

 

[Natural Citizen]

The Goebbels warming grift is about the science of money laundering.

 

[Crick]

That's why retard,

That's why what? You just said I'd be laughed out of a geology class because the timescale was too short. YOU obviously didn't understand that the conversation had NOTHING to do with geology.

you're stupid enough to believe the sky is falling. Governments need bakes like you to fall for their taxes.

It is not the government that tells me that gas solubility is temperature dependent or explains the greenhouse effect to me. It is not the government that tells me CO2 and global temperature are strongly correlated. The problem here is solely your ignorance

So you don't accept the chart, you're a science denier.

I never rejected that chart. I rejected your idiotic interpretation of it.

Please explain why 146 million years ago temperature fell and co2 increased by using your daily data graphs

As soon as mainstream science settles on an explanation for the Younger Dryas, I'll be sure to pass it on to you, fool.

 

[ding]

I have. You need to look at a few more. I am not going to bother sourcing these. The problem in your graph is that the further back one looks, the less and less accuracy and resolution is available to determine temperature and CO2. And the Younger Dryas is an outlier and very likely the result of a singular event: large scale volcanism, catastrophic rifting or asteroid impact. Here's how things work in the real world, where temperature and CO2 are tightly correlated:


View attachment 871313

View attachment 871314

View attachment 871315

View attachment 871316

View attachment 871317

Congratulations. You proved the planet is in an interglacial period.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I never rejected that chart. I rejected your idiotic interpretation of it.

You reject my interpretation? Temp went down and co2 went up in the red circle. Is that wrong? Both braincells this time please.

 

[Crick]

You reject my interpretation? Temp went down and co2 went up in the red circle. Is that wrong? Both braincells this time please.

I rejected your claim that CO2 and temperature are uncorrelated.

 

[Blues Man]

They can agree all they want just so long as the government doesn;t resort to tyranny to push the agenda

 

[Crick]

They can agree all they want just so long as the government doesn;t resort to tyranny to push the agenda

Would you be okay if they stick to what's allowed by the Constitution and the rule of law?

 

[Captain Caveman]

I rejected your claim that CO2 and temperature are uncorrelated.

Your little graphs of a tiny period in time has got alarmist cucks believing as co2 increases, it's increasing temperature. Please explain not only the part in the red circle, but in all the other areas where this is bollox?

 

[EMH]

Your little graphs of a tiny period in time has got alarmist cucks believing as co2 increases, it's increasing temperature. Please explain not only the part in the red circle, but in all the other areas where this is bollox?

No need. While there has been a lot of censorship since the 2005 FUDGING of the atmospheric temp readings, they are still out for all to see...

Thanks to NBC, which cheers the laughable fudging...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.



TRANSLATION - we have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons. Both showed NO WARMING during a period of rising Co2 in highly correlated fashion.

THEORY REJECTED