4 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 22.7 ms ] thread
climate change is happening. If one looks at the data of the last 10,000 years it is obvious that the temperature goes up and down in patterns that we do not yet understand. Since there is also data about the CO2 level in the atmosphere in the last 10,000 years it is extremely obvious that CO2 is not a major factor in the temperature increase (scientists estimate a 1-2% causation). And there is a series of scientists and Nobel price laureates who are outraged and contradict the CO2-temperature link. All weather scientist agree on two things: water vapor makes the temperature increase and it is impossible to make very long term weather predictions. But what about the melting ice? Yes on the north pole ice melts and on the south pole there is an increase in ice. The ice in Greenland that melts is on the coast and in the center of Greenland the ice increases. But what about the the rising sea level you might ask... Experts think that the rise is about 1mm per year. Some satellites measure tenfold increases but this happens only after their measurements were "recalibrated". But "97% of scientist agree" you might say... yes, but you should know what they agree about. They agree that CO2 has some impact in the temperature rise. There is a channel on Youtube that has many videos about scientists explaining all of the above: the channel is https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAR0Oi4L0Om4F26uwpANgCg
Would you mind providing actual data or citations for any of these claims? The scientific rigor of a random YouTube channel is, ah, a bit lacking.

You claim a lot of things here, but let's just look at one-

> Since there is also data about the CO2 level in the atmosphere in the last 10,000 years it is extremely obvious that CO2 is not a major factor in the temperature increase (scientists estimate a 1-2% causation).

CO2 isn't the only driver of climate change- a claim I've never seen anybody make- but from what I've seen it looks like one of the major ones, especially on the short term.

Why do you not agree that there's a connection between CO2 levels and global temperature? The theory appears pretty straightforwards- you must have some empirical data, then. Mind showing it?

No discussion about co2 and climate change is relevant or complete without discussing the role of ch4 (methane), a much more powerful greenhouse gas.
Right- definitely when discussing anthropogenic issues. (Also worth considering sulfur aerosols and their cooling effect, and lots of other stuff too.) Historically, though- IIUC- atmospheric methane levels have varied less than CO2, at least after some clever organism figured out how to photosynthesize, so, with solar output controlled for, the biggest hunk of temperature changes can be explained by the CO2 concentration.