- Thread starter
- #101
And what were the CO2 levels 550 million years ago? Low estimates are 6500 ppm, high nearly 8000.
And the sun was 5% dimmer. By your theory, which says there's no CO2 greenhouse effect, Earth at that time should been frozen snowball. It wasn't.
Your theory is contradicted by the observed data, therefore your theory is wrong. Our theory is backed up by the observed data, therefore our theory is the accepted theory. You're not ignored because of a VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot. You're ignored because the nonsense you babble is flatly contradicted by observed reality.
You speak of "my science", PROVE your point or your science is theory. There's nothing wrong with theory, but it's just that, theory. Instead of going back 550 million years ago tell me about the little ice age. CO2? Milankovitch cycles? The bottom line is you and no one else at this point can honestly say what drives climate, we just don't know, period. Admit it.
Flat-Earthers tell me that as well, that I should admit that I don't really know if the world is round. It's a standard cult song-and-dance.
The question is, is it the primary driver?
"Primary driver" is your vague handwaving term. You need to define that term exactly for it to be of any use.
There is zero evidence of this. If there was you would have provided it.
I just did. Paleoclimate can't be explained without CO2. After all, I asked you to explain it, and you ran away screaming "WE JUST DON'T KNOW!". You have admitted that your nutty conspiracy theory can't explain anything. In contrast, our theory explains it perfectly.
Great, explain to us what stopped the feedback.
Heat leads to more CO2, CO2 leads to more heat. What stops the feedback? Unless, of course they are not as married as you think.
Mathematics, the same thing that now "stops" any tiny increase in water vapor from initiating runaway positive feedback.
1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 + .... = 2
That's unending positive feedback, but it's bounded. Like I keep saying, positive feedback doesn't have to be runaway positive feedback.
I've read that every ARGO reading has .12 C added to it to make up for a bias of engine intake readings in the past.
And I've read Donald Trump is a space alien. What conspiracy blog told you such a bizarre thing?
Back in reality, by making the _past_ (and not the present) look warmer, the ocean temperature adjustments make the current warming look _smaller_. That fact is not debatable, and that fact destroys your fundamental; conspiracy theory.
I showed you that fact in post #62. You ignored it completely. Just like the rest of your religious cult, you automaticallly ignore all data that contradicts your religious beliefs. You've built a fortress in an alternate reality and retreated into it, so it's not possible to reach you with reason.
The actual observed data is discarded. How can I not be disturbed by this?
You're disturbed about a conspiracy theory that your leaders spoon-fed you, in order to make you hysterical and compliant. Once you grasp that your political cult has been lying to you about every single thing, everything will become clear to you. You'll no longer be disturbed over such imaginary bogeymen, and you'll display the same sort of serene calm possessed by those of us on the rational side.
And you are so arrogant that you believe that you know all. The scientific method demands that you prove what you are saying. You cannot even come close. You will not even try.
Just as it's not arrogant to point out how a toddler couldn't understand the necessary concepts here, it's not arrogant to point out you can't understand them either. You don't possess the necessary knowledge or temperament. That would take the equivalent of a Statistics 201 class, and a willingness to buck cult dogma.
Stop and think of something. No matter what anyone says, the 1930s were beyond doubt the hottest decade in the US.
See?. The data contradicts your religious beliefs, so you're denying the data. I clearly won't be able to reach you.
Actually, in the real world, the AGW folks are routinely referred to as "a religion". Nobody refers to skeptics as a religion except the uber radicals so......