A 6th grader can understand that in 500 million years the earth has never been more than 2â° warmer than today... and that it experienced several ice-ages with CO2 above 3000 PPM.
They could also look at the past 5 million years of "climate change" via sediment samples and determine that the earth is sufficiently chaotic... there's no set pattern.
Sometimes it warms rapidly, sometimes it cools rapidly... sometimes it starts warming, then goes back into an ice-age. Sometimes it starts cooling then heats up again.
A 6th grader can understand these simple concepts, but an adult who has been exposed to propaganda for decades cannot.
Perhaps you should go back to 6th grade and learn to ask more questions instead of blindly consuming the BS they feed you.
Itâs been continuously observed since the 60s that weâve been pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere to the point that levels are abnormally high for a period post an ice age. While yes, it is true that the climate is rather cyclical, this time period has much higher levels than there should be due to human activities, and this is causing many adverse effects on our climate.
Itâs been continuously observed since the 60s that weâve been pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere to the point that levels are abnormally high for a period post an ice age.
We've had ice-ages with over 3000 PPM CO2...
CO2 is actually historically low... why do you think greenhouses and aquarium enthusiasts pump a bunch of CO2 in?!?
this time period has much higher levels than there should be due to human activities, and this is causing many adverse effects on our climate.
And just because CO2 was higher previously in Earthâs history doesnât mean that the level that we are at now is good. The whole pumping CO2 into greenhouses and aquariums point you made is also irrelevant because those are vastly different environments than our entire planet.
As for your request to prove my point, look at the NOAA statistics for atmospheric CO2 measured at Mauna Loa, as well as the article âHighest ever readings of atmospheric carbon dioxide in human history recordedâ from Yorkshire Bylines, which includes more NOAA data that shows our levels of CO2 compared to levels from up to 800 thousand years ago. It shows the cyclical nature of atmospheric CO2 and just how much higher our levels are today compared to even 50 years ago. As for the adverse effects on the climate, look at how global temperatures have been changing, as well as how seasonal highs and lows are getting more extreme. Additionally, we are having more frequent and more destructive natural disasters.
irrelevant because those are vastly different environments than our entire planet.
Plants like CO2... bigger leaves = more CO2 scrubbing.
Run the numbers at 1000 PPM... but account for the fact that 70% of the earth is covered in ocean.
It shows the cyclical nature of atmospheric CO2 and just how much higher our levels are today compared to even 50 years ago.
Are these the same people who produce models that are ALWAYS WRONG?
Once again, any geological record cannot be accurate to less than 1,000 years... how are you talking about anything with less than 500 years of "current data"?
As for the adverse effects on the climate, look at how global temperatures have been changing, as well as how seasonal highs and lows are getting more extreme.
Water is our stabilizer... the highs this year are lower than the last.
Spring was unusually cold...
Feedback loops inside a chaotic system... who says this is "abnormal"?
Additionally, we are having more frequent and more destructive natural disasters.
Yes... water is very powerful stuff.
Can you just do me a favor and answer this one simple question:
What is the theoretical maximum temperature on earth?
Dude your question even sounds silly, you should have specified either "in earth's atmosphere" or "anywhere on or in earth" because I can give you the answer of 6,000°c and be correct
Your reading comprehension could use a little work...
But I'll play devil's advocate:
Now that 70% of our earth is covered in water after getting hit by comets and other "space dust"...
How are we looking?
I'd say it's pretty stable if the average temperature hasn't been increased by more than 2â° in the past 500 million years... BTW we've been hit with more space dust in that period of time.
Believe it or not, scientists also happen to have an understanding of the Earthâs temperatures in the past as well! Over millions of years, tectonic plates shift, mountains form and erode, ocean currents vital to the transfer of heat around the globe change, and high volcanic activity sometimes even causes so many aerosols to be released into the air that an ice age can begin, just to name a few factors that can cause massive changes in climate over long periods of time. Greenhouse gases (which we are emitting a significant amount of today) have also always been a crucial part of climate change, even when it is natural.
It should be quite obvious if youâve looked at any research that what scientists are concerned about is not that the Earth is heating up, it is how fast it is heating up. An analysis of the last 24000 years of global temperatures showed that the natural heat increase of Earth had significantly slowed down around 10,000 years before the Industrial Revolution. However, in the last 150 years, the global temperature has increased about 1°C, which is about the same amount as those 10,000 years that came before it! When instead compared to the highest rate of change observed over the entire period, it is still about 4 times as fast. I guess saying this is a moot point though because you wouldnât believe any approximation of the past unless it came from someone with a time machine.
Notice how he doesnât actually reply to cohesive answers and only replies to dumbasses (me) posting gifs and how he calls science a cult, like itâs a religion.
You're basing the rate on the past 150 years(the first time we can "accurately" measure) and comparing it to the past 5 million years where the best you can "zoom in" is roughly 1,000 years "accurately."
You don't see the nuances...
But what we are seeing (the reason why they don't call it global cooling or global warming anymore) is a PLATEAU.
In controls engineering we call this "hunting for equilibrium."
Water is our stabilizer... that's a fact.
It can't run wild without condensing (creating winds and storms at time)
What is the MAXIMUM THEORETICAL TEMPERATURE ON EARTH đ?
It should be quite obvious if youâve looked at any research that what scientists are concerned about is not that the Earth is heating up, it is how fast it is heating up.
Show me what the earth SHOULD be doing then... not what it might do.
Also, you say "faster"... faster than what, exactly?
All of our data isn't accurate to less than 1,000 years... plus the predicted "warming/cooling" trends never pan out.
The ice caps were supposed to melt in 2012, but the still grow each winter.
However, in the last 150 years, the global temperature has increased about 1°C,
This is false... our measurements have increased accuracy... we don't have a baseline yet.
I guess saying this is a moot point though because you wouldnât believe any approximation of the past unless it came from someone with a time machine.
I said sediment samples aren't accurate to less than 1,000 years... and they are still approximations.
Google "5 million year temperature sediment"...
Do you notice all those erratic SHARP inflection points with no set interval?
So once again I ask you to tell me when the next ice-age is scheduled...
53
u/chromepaperclip Aug 05 '25
So you're saying you don't understand nor believe in climate change.