This will no doubt interest the climate watchers of the forum

[progressive hunter]

That is incorrect. They are values calculated from direct observations. For instance, temperature may be calculated from the ratio of O16 and O18 oxygen isotopes held in a variety of minerals, ice or biological structures.

that is assuming the O2 and other variables of the time in question are the same as it is today,,, theres a lot of evidence its not the same,,

 

[Crick]

that is assuming the O2 and other variables of the time in question are the same as it is today,,, theres a lot of evidence its not the same,,

Really? Where?

 

[progressive hunter]

Really? Where?

you can start here

The Age of Oxygen

forces.si.edu

thats just one of the flaws in the assumption,,

 

[ReinyDays]

Do you perhaps mean the first step of the scientific method?

No .. stupid ... observation is a first rule of science ... if you can't observe it, it's not science ...

The second rule is measurement ... if we can't measure it, then it's not science ...

The first step in scientific method is stating your hypothesis ..

 

[Robert W]

I am fully aware of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I am also aware, as you seem not to be, that that amount is responsible for almost all the warming observed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Claiming that it could not be responsible because you think its just too small an amount when you actually have no knowledge of the processes involved is just a blatant expression of ignorance. The 50% lethal dose (LD50) of plutonium is 1.6 ppm. The LD50 for dioxin is as low as 18 parts per BILLION.

Actually not true. CO2 has risen a bit fast. Temperature is stable.
I believe that Dr. Patrick Moore knows far more about this topic than you know. So does Dr. Richard Lindzen. So does Dr. Judith Curry.

Carbon Dioxide is vital to plants. Humans consume a lot of plants. China and India have become far more green due to CO2 in their area of the planet. America is behind in productive use of CO2.

 

[Robert W]

I am fully aware of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I am also aware, as you seem not to be, that that amount is responsible for almost all the warming observed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Claiming that it could not be responsible because you think its just too small an amount when you actually have no knowledge of the processes involved is just a blatant expression of ignorance. The 50% lethal dose (LD50) of plutonium is 1.6 ppm. The LD50 for dioxin is as low as 18 parts per BILLION.

Today, I saw scientific charts or graphs proving you are completely wrong. We all know how CO2 has shot up. However Temperature has remained stable.

 

[Robert W]

Do you perhaps mean the first step of the scientific method?

Conditions in the distant past are elucidated from a variety of geological proxies.

That is incorrect. They are values calculated from direct observations. For instance, temperature may be calculated from the ratio of O16 and O18 oxygen isotopes held in a variety of minerals, ice or biological structures.

We are all in an ice age. So it is ice and not fire that you should discuss.

 

[Crick]

you can start here

The Age of Oxygen

forces.si.edu

thats just one of the flaws in the assumption,,

No. Your statement in post #41 suggests that the chemical/molecular/atomic behavior of oxygen might have changed between now and the distant past. That is a violation of some very fundamental science known as the uniformity principle. The link you provided simply talks about the Earth's atmosphere having different levels of oxygen at different points in time. Not the same thing. The relationship between the O16/O18 ratio and temperature is consistent across all time.

Try again. Paleoclimatology is not composed of guesses based on assumptions.

 

[Crick]

Do you perhaps mean the first step of the scientific method?

Conditions in the distant past are elucidated from a variety of geological proxies.

That is incorrect. They are values calculated from direct observations. For instance, temperature may be calculated from the ratio of O16 and O18 oxygen isotopes held in a variety of minerals, ice or biological structures.

We are all in an ice age. So it is ice and not fire that you should discuss.

The discussion concerns the validity and accuracy of paleoclimatological data. I've got no idea what you're talking about.

 

[progressive hunter]

No. Your statement in post #41 suggests that the chemical/molecular/atomic behavior of oxygen might have changed between now and the distant past. That is a violation of some very fundamental science known as the uniformity principle. The link you provided simply talks about the Earth's atmosphere having different levels of oxygen at different points in time. Not the same thing. The relationship between the O16/O18 ratio and temperature is consistent across all time.

Try again. Paleoclimatology is not composed of guesses based on assumptions.

your theory/POV fails the 3 basic rules of science,,,

and lives solely on guesses based on assumptions,,
you can word it anyway you like but thats what it is,,

 

[Crick]

Today, I saw scientific charts or graphs proving you are completely wrong. We all know how CO2 has shot up. However Temperature has remained stable.

Surely you have seen this graph or one like it?

https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_620_original_image/public/2023-05/GlobalTemp_vs_carbon_dioxide_1850-2022.png?itok=6DMB8j4s

Where did you get the idea that temperatures have remained stable? What do you think has caused all this hullaballoo about global warming?

 

[Robert W]

Surely you have seen this graph or one like it?

View attachment 854888

https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_620_original_image/public/2023-05/GlobalTemp_vs_carbon_dioxide_1850-2022.png?itok=6DMB8j4s

Where did you get the idea that temperatures have remained stable? What do you think has caused all this hullaballoo about global warming?

A change of that small amount happens every day from 6 to 8 am. Nothing to worry about.

 

[Robert W]

The discussion concerns the validity and accuracy of paleoclimatological data. I've got no idea what you're talking about.

I have presented perhaps a dozen videos showing that Dr. Patrick Moore is correct. And I suppose you refused to watch his video with his proof?

 

[Robert W]

Surely you have seen this graph or one like it?

View attachment 854888

https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_620_original_image/public/2023-05/GlobalTemp_vs_carbon_dioxide_1850-2022.png?itok=6DMB8j4s

Where did you get the idea that temperatures have remained stable? What do you think has caused all this hullaballoo about global warming?

Dr. Patrick Moore presented over 6 such graphs. And he actually explained them.

 

[Crick]

A change of that small amount happens every day from 6 to 8 am. Nothing to worry about.

That is the temperature of the entire planet. It does NOT see a change like that every morning.

 

[Robert W]

That is the temperature of the entire planet. It does NOT see a change like that every morning.

You know that is not true.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Take this for a test drive.

How Much Hotter Is Your Hometown Than When You Were Born? (Published 2018)

See how days at or above 90 degrees Fahrenheit have changed in your lifetime and how much hotter it could get.

www.nytimes.com

Means nothing.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Man made global warming is bullshit.

Point made in a single direct statement.

 

[Crick]

Point made in a single direct statement.

You think that makes a point? Let me try.

You're a ******* idiot.

How'd I do?

 

[Crick]

You know that is not true.

I know it is an absolute fact.

Where did you get the idea that the Earth's temperature has been stable?