Epic Correction of the Decade

[Svartalf]

Isn't there some kind of catch all "anything but CO2 effect"?

My Finnish nationalist friend does not believe in global warming because of Muskims. The Finnish green party supports bringing in Muslim refugees. And cutting down global warming. He hates Muslims, therefore no global warming.

You know what, there's a kind of logic there... is your friend a 'True Finn' by any chance?

[pErvinalia]

What's shat me the most about waisting my time here tonight is that I forgot to bid at the end of an ebay auction for a lens I wanted. Damn you, denialists!

[mistermack]

I'd like a good reference for 7000ppm in the Cambrian. I can only find a reference to denialist blogs. None of them link a source.

You could have read my earlier post for the source.
Here it is again :

Reconstructions show that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have varied from as high as 7,000 parts per million (ppm) during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years. Global annual mean CO2 concentration has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for 10,000 years up to the mid-18th century,[2] to 403 ppm as of 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_di ... atmosphere

7,000 ppm was quoted as a peak figure, with 4,500 as being the average over the entire era.

[Animavore]

So what I'm easily finding out by a quick Google is that the Sun's output was 4% less back then. So despite the amount of CO2, the temperature was on average 22C. There were also no life on the land to be affected by this temperature, and, in fact, it was the arrival of plants which took all of the CO2 out of the sky and locked much of it down in the carboniferous (which is why no one is predicting that it will get that high again from burning fossil).

Once again I learnt stuff about science, indirectly, through looking for answers to denialist questions.

The difference is simple; a person out for scientific understanding takes such questions seriously, and, with an open mind, seeks answers, if any are provided. The denialist asks questions, not because they are genuinely curious, but because they are looking for a gotcha. They don't actually care about answers at all. Which is why answering them is only ever an exercise in discovering stuff out for ones self, and then sharing them with other, interested people. This isn't for the denialist's benefit.

[mistermack]

What you've overlooked is that the Earth was closer to the Sun 500,000,000 years ago, and that would likely counterbalance the fact of lower solar output.
Also, as I said earlier, there would be no polar ice to reflect the Sun's energy. There would be dark oceans at the poles absorbing virtually all of it.

[Brian Peacock]

The atmosphere was radically different back then, so that comparisons remain just that, comparable but not equivalent. Anyway...

Speaking of lag, as I was....

Hopes of mild climate change dashed by new research

Planet could heat up far more than hoped as new work shows temperature rises measured over recent decades don’t fully reflect global warming already in the pipeline

Hopes that the world’s huge carbon emissions might not drive temperatures up to dangerous levels have been dashed by new research.

The work shows that temperature rises measured over recent decades do not fully reflect the global warming already in the pipeline and that the ultimate heating of the planet could be even worse than feared.

How much global temperatures rise for a certain level of carbon emissions is called climate sensitivity and is seen as the single most important measure of climate change. Computer models have long indicated a high level of sensitivity, up to 4.5C for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

However in recent years estimates of climate sensitivity based on historical temperature records from the past century or so have suggested the response might be no more than 3C. This would mean the planet could be kept safe with lower cuts in emissions, which are easier to achieve.

But the new work, using both models and paleoclimate data from warming periods in the Earth’s past, shows that the historical temperature measurements do not reveal the slow heating of the planet’s oceans that takes place for decades or centuries after CO2 has been added to the atmosphere.

“The hope was that climate sensitivity was lower and the Earth is not going to warm as much,” said Cristian Proistosescu, at Harvard University in the US, who led the new research. “There was this wave of optimism.”

The new research, published in the journal Science Advances, has ended that. “The worrisome part is that all the models show there is an amplification of the amount of warming in the future,” he said. The situation might be even worse, as Proistosescu’s work shows climate sensitivity could be as high as 6C.

Prof Bill Collins, at the University of Reading, UK, and not part of the new research, said: “Some have suggested that we might be lucky and avoid dangerous climate change without taking determined action if the climate is not very sensitive to CO2 emissions. This work provides new evidence that that chance is remote.” He said greater long term warming had implications for melting of the world’s ice sheets and the rise of sea levels that already threatens many coastal cities....

Continues...

[Animavore]

Oh right. I didn't know the Cambrian was already discussed and dealt with earlier in the thread. As was already mentioned, comparing a time with almost alien conditions to now is silly.

Well I see no need to go back over that ground.

[Brian Peacock]

And also, and explanation of the findings in article posted above...

Bad news for climate contrarians – 'the best data we have' just got hotter
The favorite satellite data of contrarians like Ted Cruz corrected for some errors and ended up hotter

Read on...

[mistermack]

Anyway...

Speaking of lag, as I was....

If you work in climate science, you only get funded if you can find away to increase alarm levels.
These guys have to justify their existence. What do you think they are going to do?
When did anybody last produce a model to see if there was any counterbalancing mechanism to rising CO2 ? Never.

Like I said earlier. There are no scientists left in the industry. Only activists. And they are doing very nicely.

Re-jig a few models, produce a paper, and hold your hand out. That's how it works now.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, and like I said earlier, if you want to overturn the scientific consensus show us your data. Without that, all you have are empty pleas.

So, are you saying that there shouldn't be a lag then?

[Animavore]

Where are Denialists producing papers about the counteracting effects of CO2?

Actually... Where are the denialists producing papers at all?

[Animavore]

Edit: wrong thread.

[pErvinalia]

Anyway...

Speaking of lag, as I was....

If you work in climate science, you only get funded if you can find away to increase alarm levels.

And you know this how?

These guys have to justify their existence. What do you think they are going to do?

So true. It's the same thing with vaccines. And man, don't get me started on the germ "theory" of disease. It just greedy scientists creating a scare campaign about germs causing illness. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

When did anybody last produce a model to see if there was any counterbalancing mechanism to rising CO2 ? Never.

That article from Animavore specifically mentioned negative feedback.

Like I said earlier. There are no scientists left in the industry. Only activists. And they are doing very nicely.

Like others mentioned earlier, there are far more lucrative scientific fields (like genetics, for example; which by the way is a conspiracy theory) if money was the driving factor of scientists.

Re-jig a few models, produce a paper, and hold your hand out. That's how it works now.

With all due respect to your years of employment as a scientist, I'd suggest you have no fucking clue how science or science funding works.

If you are going to peddle a ridiculous conspiracy theory, at least make it potentially credible. Don't pick a field that isn't paid significantly more than average, and one where all the actual money in society is directed against the supposed conspiracy.

[Tero]

Isn't there some kind of catch all "anything but CO2 effect"?

My Finnish nationalist friend does not believe in global warming because of Muskims. The Finnish green party supports bringing in Muslim refugees. And cutting down global warming. He hates Muslims, therefore no global warming.

You know what, there's a kind of logic there... is your friend a 'True Finn' by any chance?

he was, but they vote a number of ways, as the Finn party is a failure in the parliament. A 2017 shake up led to less seats

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finns_Par ... _and_split

so may Finns of Finn party back ground are looking elsewhere. They are looking for the Finnish Trump. Image and speeches are more important to them than results. If the refugees feel hated enough, the will move to Sweden or Denmark!

[mistermack]

Yeah, and like I said earlier, if you want to overturn the scientific consensus show us your data. Without that, all you have are empty pleas.

So, are you saying that there shouldn't be a lag then?

You lost that one ages ago.

Look up holes and digging.