Not going to be the death of planet Earth of course, its merely an indicator. Like most things that are VERY complicated, climate change can't be narrowed down to one item, and an extrapolation made on that one narrow focus.
@hippyjoe1955 It 100% does not show that. Its merely a graph showing probably CO2 levels per era. It says nothing about temperature. In fact the study this came from (context is ALWAYS needed for data) is not about the temperature at all, its about checking CO2 per era, temperature of course relates, but nothing in that study talks about it being a driver.
The study can be found here, https://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf
In fact, to my point, the last sentence of the conclusion states, [b]"The long term carbon cycle demands a multidisciplinary approach." [/b]
You cannot take a study that has no interest in temperature, pull a graph out of it, and claim it proves your claim. Thats not how science works.
@Pherick Son you really need to take a break. Here is a different way of looking at things. If you study structural engineering you will encounter something called a safety factor. Say there is a beam that has a load rating of 5000 lbs with a safety factor of 1.65 In other words the beam can actually carry 8.250 lbs before it is deformed out of its design parameters. If we are at 400 ppm and we know that in the past the earth easily survived a CO2 level of 6000 ppm we have a safety factor of at least 15. Of course that number is rather meaningless since there is no causal link between CO2 and temperature. Not to mention we have never defined an ideal temperature. Temperature goes up and life increases. Temperature goes down and things die. Hmmmm So what is the ideal we should be aiming at? No one can say. What can be said is trying to control CO2 levels is a mugs game. One good volcano can in a few hours put more CO2 into the atmosphere than mankind can do in a year.
@hippyjoe1955 Sadly you of course begin to deflect and ramble, and never actually answer the question about some random graph you found proves what you believe it does. Its what I have come to expect from you.
What you keep claiming is that "Earth has survived" no one is disputing that the Earth will survive. No one thinks the Earth will explode if it gets too hot. The question is, can humanity survive on a planet that has an increasing temperature. Can humanity, who have been on this Earth for a mere blip in the Earth's lifetime, survive, as we have been, should the seas rise and climate change.
Will we? I think probably yes, though life and civilization will not look the same as they do now. So you seem to be focusing on the planet itself, which is kind of odd, and most people talking about climate change are focusing on the perpetuation of the human species.
@Pherick Not deflecting at all. Unless we have clear and defined goals then simply destroying our economy for the same of preventing climate change is beyond stupid. That there is no direct causal link between CO2 levels and temperature change, as shown in the graph, further proves the lack of science behind the entire AGW movement.
@hippyjoe1955 LOL again the graph you posted doesn't show that. This graph actually shows it, of course a graph without context isn't very useful, but atleast this graph actually shows what you claim.
That comes from here, for context, https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/multimedia/global-temperature-and-carbon-dioxide
@hippyjoe1955 Do you have detailed temperature data from past the 1880's available to you? If so, you should reach out to the world's scientific communities. I am sure they would love to chat with you.
WHAT??? You don't have it?
Are you trying to mislead someone with your graph that shows CO2 and time, but NOTHING about temperature and somehow claim it does?
As everyone else realizes and you seem to want to put your head in the sand, climate change is complicated, its not just the rise of CO2 in recent time, its many many many factors. You have an incredible ability to focus on one, claim its doing something its not and then make false statements.
You should do more research. I know you won't, but you should. You can be wrong and still sound educated, you are just wrong and sound ... well, I am sure you know how you sound.
@Pherick Believe it or not son the reason the 1880s was chosen is because we were just coming out of the little ice age at that time. People were ice skating on the Thames in London. It was cold due to volcanic eruptions. Do so basic science please.
[quote]Three of the world’s most complete temperature tracking records – from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climactic Data Center and the UK Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre – begin in 1880. Prior to 1880, temperature measurements were made with instruments like thermometers. The oldest continuous temperature record is the Central England Temperature Data Series, which began in 1659, and the Hadley Centre has some measurements beginning in 1850, but there are too few data before 1880 for scientists to estimate average temperatures for the entire planet. Data from earlier years are reconstructed from proxy records like tree rings, pollen counts, and ice cores. Because these are different kinds of data, scientists generally don’t put proxy-based estimates on the same charts as the “instrumental record.”
The above-mentioned agencies and others collect temperature data from thousands of weather stations worldwide, including over the ocean, in Antarctica, and from satellites. However, instruments are not perfectly distributed around the globe, and some measurement sites have been deforested or urbanized since 1880, affecting temperatures nearby. Each agency uses algorithms to filter the effects of these changes out of the temperature record and interpolate where data are sparse, like over the vast Southern Ocean, when calculating global averages. Generally, all four datasets agree quite closely (see graph above) and are in agreement on the global warming trend since the Industrial Revolution.[/quote]
@Pherick You might as well ask the CDC about the effectiveness of the covid jabs as to ask NASA about the weather/climate/temperature. They lie to serve their political masters. It keeps their funding flowing.
