Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

It's not a useless statistic at all. You just refuse to know why it is the best measure of global surface temperature.

Of course. But climate happens throughout the troposphere, and not just at the instrument sites, which have multiple problems.

Those are fabrications on your part.

That's just another bald falsehood from you.

 

ROFLMBAO

How big was the wheat harvest when the CO2 was 5000 ppm? Maybe it is not fog between the ears. Bilgewater?

 

Yeah Right!

 

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

That is correct. Repeated identification of others' repeated falsehoods is quite different from screaming "LIAR!"

You pay enough attention to me to spend a lot of time makin' $#!+ up about what I have plainly written.

That is just another bald falsehood from you.

Yes, of course it did. People have been trying to figure out what causes climate to change since prehistoric times. The process has been largely as I described.

No, that is just another bald falsehood from you.

And I have proposed the many known (and admitted the possibility of some potentially unknown) cyclical and non-cyclical physical -- not magical -- factors that affect climate, not vague unknown magic.

So your claim that I have proposed vague unknown magic was just another bald falsehood on your part.

No, I have identified the relevant facts.

And you are aware of the fact that I have not proposed any such theory.

Thank you for agreeing that your claim was just another bald falsehood on your part.

No, that is just another bald falsehood from you.

I don't make any prediction based on magic unknown causal factors. The predictions I make are based on the known relevant principles of atmospheric physics, the known climate record, and the established principles of scientific inference.

No one knows that because no one knows how solar activity will change, what volcanoes will do, etc. My prediction is that CO2 will continue to rise more or less exponentially, but temperature will not continue to rise. I also predict that any such temperature increase as might occur, from whatever cause, will continue not to cause any significant problems for humanity.

A prolonged -- i.e., more than two cycles -- minimum in solar activity accompanied by continued rising CO2 and increased temperature, as measured by the lower troposphere satellite record and arctic sea ice extent.

I have made the above prediction, among others, numerous times.

I have stated conditions that would disprove it unambiguously. It is not possible to specify all the possible combinations of data that could potentially disprove it.

But that is what the temperature record shows.

No, it is visually obvious in the temperature record.

You constantly make up stories about what your opponents have plainly written, and that's another reason why you're not taken seriously.

No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. You have not identified any error I have made in graph reading, nor will you ever be doing so.

The change from rapid warming 1910-1940 to cooling in the early 1940s was indisputably sudden.

That is just another bald falsehood from you.

<yawn> I studied planetary physics, including atmospheric physics, at an internationally respected university.

And was at or near the top of my classes in several math courses at said university.

I also hold a degree in philosophy, with honors, from said university.

So those are some very large faceplants on your part.

You, by contrast, have no apparent education in math, atmospheric physics, logic, or any other relevant discipline. All you do is shriek absurd and disingenuous ad hominem imprecations:

See?

 

The evidence provided by Red China in the last ~ 70 years is quite clear.

 

The yield would have been spectacular. Plants love CO2. Biology 101.

 

Would have been? Why wasn't it?

Are you not mentioning the date because it was so long ago that there were no human beings to grow wheat? And how did you arrive at that 5000 number? Get it from scientists?

It is really funny how you cherry pick scientific information to support your delusions.

 

“Wheat” didn’t exist when atmospheric CO2 was 5000ppm.

However, when wheat began it’s evolution, atmospheric CO2 was fluctuating between 3000 and 9000 ppm. When the direct ancestors of what we call wheat came on the scene CO2 levels were still 1000+ ppm.

Humans started selecting varieties of “wheat” over 10,000 years ago. We intentionally selected genetics that did well at very low CO2 concentrations (around 280 ppm initially). Even after over 10,000 years of selecting genetics that thrive at low CO2, varieties we use today still yield BETTER at CO2 levels twice what they are today. Relatives of “wheat” that have not been pressured by human selection maintain optimal growth potential at CO2 three times current levels.

We humans that still retain ability to think critically (non climate nutters who follow science) are very adaptive. If CO2 levels ever approach optimal for wheat growth (somewhere between 100 and 200 years from now based on historical increases and assuming no CO2 emissions reduction) we can easily begin to select wheat genetics that perform better at higher CO2 levels so optimal yields can continue.

Wheat ancestral species were very adaptable. Humans are very adaptable. Well, some of us anyway. We will make sure you have plenty of wheat for your doughnuts and cakes and all the other things you need to increase global obesity.

 

There wasn’t wheat at the time.

Natural history. Some estimates approach 8000 ppm.

 

ROFLMAO

You can believe that I didn't know that if you want. I brought it up because somebody was being totally absurd. Notice that somebody has not provided data about when CO2 was that high but it had to come from SCIENTISTS.

I provided a graph with CO2 and temperature data from ice cores for 800,000 years and a link to information about ice cores. But I have not seen any information sources supporting your silly drivel. The scientists say it has been about 3 million years since CO2 was at 400 ppm so the length of time to 5000 ppm is unimaginably irrelevant. So utter idiocy is being demonstrated by bringing it up.

I am just waiting until I get bored to stop responding.

 

Silly drivel? You aren’t aware of the time period terrestrial plants began evolving? You aren’t aware of when grass species developed?

If you REALLY knew about wheat and when atmospheric CO2 was 5000 ppm you wouldn’t need references.

You don’t need to respond. I’m not interested in pure fallacy you post anyway. I have presented what “scientists say” about the evolution of wheat. I’ve presented what “scientists say” about optimal CO2 levels for wheat and relatives.

If you want some REAL science you can check out these links.

“Plants” came on the scene in this time period.


https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/#:~:text=The most distant period in,whopping 3000 to 9000 ppm!

Grass speciation about here.

https://today.tamu.edu/2021/06/14/a...al-66-million-years-of-carbon-dioxide-levels/

Some studies on optimal CO2 for wheat.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190724084543.htm

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26253981/

“Cousins” of wheat.

https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-018-1243-3

The evolutionary development of plants is not drivel or idiocy. It’s very important information to those of us tasked with feeding your pie hole.

 

Who cares if there weren't any PEOPLE!?

 

Because the genetics of WHEAT TODAY are a direct result of the selective pressures of those times. Those of us who are interested in feeding a hungry planet care because we don’t want ya’ll to go hungry. We care about you even if you don’t care about biology or climate science.

 

So why don't you specify how many millions of years ago that co2 was 5000 ppm and let everyone judge how relevant it is?

I considered my 800,000 year graph to be sufficiently relevant. There is no record of anyone growing wheat at the time.

 

It’s quite amazing that the champions og global warming hysteria no so little about the natural history of the Earth.

 

How do you expect to understand the effects of people on a phenomenon if you don't care to understand the phenomenon's behavior in the absence of people?

 

Compared to 4 billion years 800,000 years is a relative instant.

Why do some greenhouses provide an auxiliary flow of CO2?

 

800Ky is sufficient to show that CO2 correlates far better with previous than with succeeding temperatures, which proves CO2 cannot be a significant factor in causing temperature.

 

LOL, this guy teaching other teachers? No wonder kids ar so clueless. The real atmosphere has about 400 ppm of CO2 not six leak seltzer tablets.

 

https://www.google.com/url?q=https:...e-on-earth-is-much-older-than-we-thought.html

So the point of your 4 billion is what?

 

I have had graphs of CO2 concentrations on my phone for years. There is a reason why you don't provide a date for 5000 ppm.


You have to go back 425,000,000 years.
You have to go back 130,000,000 years to reach 2000 ppm. There were things more powerful than the Melankovitch Cycles affecting climate then. 5000 ppm is about where OSHA says it is unsafe for humans in enclosed spaces.

 

That’s the age of the Earth.

 

Ummm. I did specify.

It’s quite relevant to point out wheat yields will greatly improve as a function of higher atmospheric CO2 levels.

 

The point is that the Earth did not turn into Venus. There is no tipping point.

 

Holy ****! I had no idea!

How long was the surfacee molten? Then how long before there was a form of life that produced oxygen? Isn't this issue about a reasonably comfortable life for humans not whatever was happening before the dinosaurs were wiped out?