[ingliz]

@Truth To Power

I was really reminding everyone that you pontificate on high about things you know bugger all about.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

I was really reminding everyone that you pontificate on high about things you know bugger all about.

No. You were really reminding everyone that you like to pretend you have something relevant to contribute when all you really have is a personal axe to grind. As your comment above proves.

[ingliz]

@Truth To Power

Explain then, if it wasn't CO2 levels, why the equatorial mean temperature was 41°C around 55 million years ago, and it's 31°C now?

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Explain then, if it wasn't CO2 levels, why the equatorial mean temperature was 41C around 55 million years ago and it's 31C now.

Because higher temperature causes the oceans to release CO2 (which becomes less soluble in water as temperature rises). In nature, surface temperature governs CO2, not vice versa, as proved, repeat, proved by the fact that atmospheric CO2 is much more strongly correlated with previous temperature than succeeding temperature in the paleoclimate record. Because the oceans contain two orders of magnitude more CO2 than the atmosphere, a small difference in temperature causes a large difference in atmospheric CO2.

I have explained all this before, many times, in clear, simple, grammatical English. You merely decided not to know it because you realized that it proved your beliefs were false.

[ingliz]

@Truth To Power

Why was the temperature higher, though? What mechanism raised the temperature in the first place? Increasing CO2 levels, No?

Known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), the geological record shows a vast rise in CO2 levels pushed up temperatures over just a few thousand years. The event is blamed on heightened levels of volcanic activity pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

[Truth To Power]

delete

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Why was the temperature higher, though? What mechanism raised the temperature in the first place? Increasing CO2 levels, No?

No, that cannot be true, as already explained: the paleoclimate record shows that CO2 correlates with preceding temperature better than succeeding temperature. We don't actually know in detail why the earth's surface temperature has almost always been quite a bit higher than it is now -- and much higher than it has been for ~90% of the last 2My. It probably has something to do with continental drift affecting the balance of land masses between the northern and southern hemispheres, combined with long-term changes in the earth's orbital eccentricity and axial tilt. It may also have a connection with the moon, which has been slowly receding from the earth and slowing the earth's rotation ever since it formed.

Known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), the geological record shows a vast rise in CO2 levels pushed up temperatures over just a few thousand years.

No, that's false. All the geological record shows is that CO2 rose at about the same time as temperature. The record is not capable of distinguishing such precise chronological detail at such a huge remove in time. That CO2 must have increased first is just an assumption based on the CO2-controls-temperature narrative.

The event is blamed on heightened levels of volcanic activity pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

By whom? A much more plausible explanation is that the huge amounts of SO2 the volcanic activity pumped into the atmosphere fell as acid rain, destroying almost all plants, which then could not transpire water vapor into the atmosphere, drastically reducing cloud cover and the earth's albedo.

[Pants-of-dog]

Another day of smoke from anthropogenic climate change that I can see right outside my window.

[Truth To Power]

Another day of smoke from anthropogenic climate change that I can see right outside my window.

That wildfires are caused by anthropogenic climate change is an assumption contrary to empirical fact: total acreage burned annually in wildfires was just as great centuries ago, and has been on a downtrend for decades. Smoke outside your window is also only evidence of wildfires, not of any climate "crisis," anthropogenic or otherwise.

[Pants-of-dog]

That wildfires are caused by anthropogenic climate change is an assumption contrary to empirical fact: total acreage burned annually in wildfires was just as great centuries ago, and has been on a downtrend for decades.

Yes and no.

Earlier this year in Alberta, the area burning was ten times the usual amount so early in the spring, which is why we have had record amount of smoke pollution.

So, while tot al amounts might be the same overall for all of North America, locally, this is not the case.

Smoke outside your window is also only evidence of wildfires, not of any climate "crisis," anthropogenic or otherwise.

The record amount of smoke increasing each year due to longer, drier, hotter
climate all year round is available outside my window, and indicates anthropogenic climate change.

After all, I am not just looking out my window today.

How long have you been asking people to look outside the window? Since at least 2019. So, if you want people to confirm the existence (or not) of anthropogenic climate change by looking out the window as you say, then either expect people to have been doing so for years now (and do not incorrectly assume we just started today) or be realistic and accept that your own demand of looking out the window is useless unless you have been doing so for years (as I have).

[Truth To Power]

Yes and no.

No, just yes.

Earlier this year in Alberta, the area burning was ten times the usual amount so early in the spring, which is why we have had record amount of smoke pollution.

So you are unaware of the concept of natural variation. That fits.

So, while tot al amounts might be the same overall for all of North America, locally, this is not the case.

So you are unaware of the concept that natural variation implies things will be different in different places. That fits.

The record amount of smoke increasing each year due to longer, drier, hotter
climate all year round is available outside my window, and indicates anthropogenic climate change.

I already proved to you that it is not increasing each year, nor is climate drier or hotter (let alone "longer" whatever that might mean) each year.

After all, I am not just looking out my window today.

Or thinking honestly about what you see there.

How long have you been asking people to look outside the window? Since at least 2019. So, if you want people to confirm the existence (or not) of anthropogenic climate change by looking out the window as you say, then either expect people to have been doing so for years now (and do not incorrectly assume we just started today) or be realistic and accept that your own demand of looking out the window is useless unless you have been doing so for years (as I have).

I don't ask people to confirm the non-existence of anthropogenic climate change by looking out their windows, just the non-existence of any climate "crisis" or "emergency." Your window seems to do just fine for that purpose.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

We both know that you have no evidence at all that a tenfold increase in land area burnt is within the biunds of natural variation.

And no, you did not show that there smoke was not increasing each year. Instead, you provided a graph about amount of land area burned.

And yes, you ask people to confirm the non-existence of anthropogenic climate change by looking out their windows, and gave been doing so for years, on this forum. We can look at your posts and see this.

Also, how does lethal amounts of air pollution (for days at a time) nit count as a crisis?

[ingliz]

@Truth To Power

The fossil record shows rising CO2 emissions drive warming.

T. L. Babila et al. (2022) Surface ocean warming and acidification driven by rapid carbon release precedes Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

The study confirms that just prior to the PETM there was an additional shorter rise in atmospheric CO2 with total carbon emissions similar to modern-day levels. This drove a brief, smaller episode of warming and ocean acidification.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

The fossil record shows rising CO2 emissions drive warming.

No it doesn't.

T. L. Babila et al. (2022) Surface ocean warming and acidification driven by rapid carbon release precedes Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

From YOUR OWN SOURCE:
"However, determining the succession of environmental changes at the CIE onset in deep-sea cores, which typically provide the most continuous deposition, is challenging as most sections lack calcareous microfossils, are highly condensed or truncated as a result of severe chemical erosion (9, 10), and/or are complicated by bioturbation, reworking, and winnowing. The uncertainty surrounding the magnitude, pattern, and rate of carbon release therefore hinders efforts to identify the source and causal mechanism, and thus, the role of feedbacks in driving the warming observed during the initial stage of the PETM remains debated."

Clear?

The study confirms that just prior to the PETM there was an additional shorter rise in atmospheric CO2 with total carbon emissions similar to modern-day levels.

The fact that there was a CO2 emission is not evidence that it caused the warming, especially as it is known that warming causes release of CO2 from the oceans.

This drove a brief, smaller episode of warming and ocean acidification.

No, I already explained why that is a post hoc fallacy.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

We both know that you have no evidence at all that a tenfold increase in land area burnt is within the biunds of natural variation.

No, we both know that I already posted the evidence, and that you are pretending I did not, as is your wont.

And no, you did not show that there smoke was not increasing each year. Instead, you provided a graph about amount of land area burned.

Which constituted proof, repeat, PROOF that smoke was not increasing each year. You just deny that I posted the proof, as is your wont.

And yes, you ask people to confirm the non-existence of anthropogenic climate change by looking out their windows, and gave been doing so for years, on this forum. We can look at your posts and see this.

Then you should be able to provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote to that effect.

Why haven't you?

Also, how does lethal amounts of air pollution (for days at a time) nit count as a crisis?

Air pollution is not climate, and plenty of lethal things are not crises.

[Truth To Power]

Another day of smoke from anthropogenic climate change that I can see right outside my window.

Another post hoc fallacy from a climate science denier -- in the form of a sentence fragment, which he so hypocritically (and often falsely) accuses others of writing.

[Godstud]

@Pants-of-dog We had a lot of rain this last month. I guess that's proof that the Great Flood is coming.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, we both know that I already posted the evidence, and that you are pretending I did not, as is your wont.

Which constituted proof, repeat, PROOF that smoke was not increasing each year. You just deny that I posted the proof, as is your wont.

Then you should be able to provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote to that effect.

Why haven't you?

Air pollution is not climate, and plenty of lethal things are not crises.

Please address the evidence cited here:
viewtopic.php?f=45&t=183786&start=40#p15285471

Specifically, the evidence showing how these wildfires are associated with climate change.

————-

@Godstud

Is it hyperbole to say that Thailand will have significant amounts of flooding by the end of the century from climate change?

[skinster]

[Negotiator]

What the F ?

An astronomer cant prove in the lab that the sun or the moon exists.

A meterologist cant prove in the lab what the current weather is.

A historian cant prove in the lab who the sitting US president is.

Certain things like chemistry and physical laws can be proven in the lab, but many things cannot, and yet they are of course science as well.