General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Marc Jones
Astrum
comments

Comments by "Marc Jones" (@QT5656) on "This Will Be My Most Disliked Video On YouTube | Climate Change" video.

@McMinderbinder Sorry to destroy your comforting fiction but the current rapid warming cannot be explained by orbital forcing or natural glacial-interglacial cycles. Climate scientists understand the glacial-interglacial cycles very well and scientists know the position of the Earth and where we are along the cycles currently. The warming from the last ice age levelled off about 6000 yeas ago and it's not expected to get cold again for another 16000 years. The current relatively rapid warming is due to anthropogenic CO2 as predicted by many scientist since 1896 (including Exxon's own scientists in the 1970s). We know atmospheric CO2 has increased because it can be measured, and we know that the extra CO2 is due to burning fossil fuels (not volcanoes) because the isotope ratio has shifted towards C12. Moreover, if the warming was due to orbital or solar cycles we wouldn't be experiencing stratospheric cooling which we are.
6
@McMinderbinder Your position is based in feelings not facts or science. Currently the people making lots of money whilst causing problems for the tax payer and future generations to pick up are the oil corporations. Please listen to the podcast Drilled by Amy Westervelt.
5
Solar activity is currently low and is can explain some of the stratospheric cooling. The cooling is also due to ozone depletion and increases in greenhouse gases particularly CO2. This lower solar activity should also mean lower global surface temperatures but forcing from the extra CO2 humans have put in the atmosphere means that global temperatures continue to rise: as shown by multiple parallel datasets including urban ground stations, rural ground stations, ship sensors, buoys, satellites, long lived sponges, dragonflies, and cherry trees.
4
Dansgaard-Oeschger events are very likely due to influxes of freshwater into the North Atlantic or major change in ocean circulation. Neither of those tings are happening right now. They cannot explain the current rapid warming. It's CO2. The current relatively rapid warming is due to anthropogenic CO2 as predicted by many scientist since 1896 (including Exxon's own scientists in the 1970s). We know atmospheric CO2 has increased because it can be measured, and we know that the extra CO2 is due to burning fossil fuels (not volcanoes) because the isotope ratio has shifted towards C12. If the warming was due to orbital or solar cycles we wouldn't be experiencing stratospheric cooling which we are.
4
@MrHarumakiSensei You should read up on the topic because the knowledge you demonstrate is very shallow.
3
@McMinderbinder What was the sea level like during the Cretaceous? How much agriculture was there? What was solar output?
3
😂 It doesn't sound like you know much geochronology.
3
The Urban Heat Island effect has been studied extensively by Berkeley Earth: "Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero". You can look up and compare urban and rural stations and they provide the same general warming trend as do many other parallel and independent datasets, e.g. satellites, ship sensors, buoys, coral, and long lived sponges. Cherry tree blosum peak is also shifting which indicates warming. It's warming and it's due to anthropogenic CO2.
3
@AapVanDieKaap Nope, the models have been accurate including those made by Exxon in the 1970s. Even for Jim Hansen's scenario A projection the the relationship between global warming and temperature was correct as shown by the most up to date measurements from a range of sources. - Hausfather et al 2020. Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections. Geophysical Research Letters - Supran et al., 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science
3
@homewardboundphotos The Alaskan crab fishing is a multi-million dollar industry (or at least it was) so well done on showing off your profound ignorance. Also your 0.00000001% of the population guess is incorrect even if you're measuring it against the population of the entire Earth (7880000000) rather than USA and given that the Alaskan crab fishing industry alone recently involved 1250 people directly on boats. That would be closer to 0.0000158% of the world's population and that ignores all the people who process, buy sell, work in restaurants etc. You also ignore California and Oregon, and the related effects on other catch. It's almost as if you don't care about actual facts and have to misrepresent reality when attempting to support our position.
3
@homewardboundphotos You don't seem to appreciate how important climate stability is for human civilisation. You're going to get a shock.
3
@homewardboundphotos Ask the crab fisherman in Alaska and California how their fisheries are going in a warming world.
3
@Platinum1812 It's very easy to predict when a pot of water will boil but not so easy to predict the path of individual bubbles. Please think about that when using the predictability of weather to assess how accurate climate predictions might be. Better still go actually look up how accurate they've been.
3
@MrHarumakiSensei Nope, not true at all. Measurements from urban ground stations, rural ground stations, satellites, bouys, ship sensors, corals, sponges, and cherry trees, all show the same warming trend.
3
Yes, water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas however water vapor is not a driver of climate change, it is an amplifier (a positive feedback). The amount of water in the atmosphere varies over a matter of days and by region according to air temperature and the availability of water for evaporation. By contrast CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and can accumulate at high latitudes (where the poles are). Water has a residence time of only a few days unlike CO2 which can be in the atmosphere for years. If it was water vapor that was driving the recent warming then the greatest warming would be seen in summer and at low latitudes - the opposite of what is actually observed. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has been increasing in recent decades because of anthropogenic CO2 which has warmed the troposphere. Moreover, burning hydrocarbons from fossil fuels leads to a net addition of water vapor to the system. Further reading: Al‐Ghussain 2019. Global warming: review on driving forces and mitigation. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 38(1), 13-21. Bengtsson 2010. The global atmospheric water cycle. Environmental Research Letters, 5(2), p.025202. Santer et al. 2007. Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15248-15253.
3
@AapVanDieKaap Nope, the models, including Exxon's from the 1970s, have been generally correct. You have been conned by some blog showing Hansen's worst case scenario which was contingent on even more CO2 being released than has been. Hansen's other projects are pretty much spot on.
3
@homewardboundphotos 500 million years ago there was no life on land... The Sun was also less powerful... This is basic stuff. 🙄
3
Climate skeptic Professor Richard Muller spent years studying the difference between urban and rural station data and concluded that "the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero". The data is freely available at Berkeley Earth. He is no longer a skeptic after actually studying the data.
3
@slooob23 Costs of crop insurance are increasing due to droughts. Perhaps you should look that up before speculating on how great it would be in a hot house Earth.
3
@slooob23 There is a general relationship between warmth and diversity however it's not that simple. Plants also need water and soil. Moreover, crops need a stable climate. This is basic stuff.
3
@slooob23 How am I talking nonsense? You've implied that you think the latitudinal gradient is some kind of kind of gotcha and I'm telling you that you are being overly reductive.
3
@slooob23 Your references to the latitudinal biodiversity gradient is not the gotcha you think it is given that it refers to biodiversity of animals such as snails not the ability to grow crops. Number of species is not the same as biomass either. Moreover, actual science by friends on mine at UCL have shown that it has not been a persistent feature through time.
3
@slooob23 I feel just fine. Why would I cry?
3
@slooob23 Desperate dumb false dichotomy.
3
@slooob23 Do you think equivocating is good faith behaviour?
3
@chriselson7413 Do you actually even know what climate is?
3
@chriselson7413 If the climate of a region changes is crop failure more or less likely?
3
@allanparker20 Just because you are unaware of the data it doesn't mean that it is poor, e.g. Gehrels and Woodworth, 2013. When did modern rates of sea-level rise start? Global and Planetary Change, 100, 263-277.
3
@jameyl5147 It's telling that you can't cite a single scientific source to support that narrative so you decide to reject all science.
3
@SevScout Unbelievers in scientific evidence and what the vast majority of climate scientists agree on?
2
@chriselson7413 Why do you think crops fail?
2
@slooob23 Physics doesn't care about your politics.
2
@slooob23 LOL, the Tongan volcanic eruption occurred in 2022. The recent rapid rise in global temperatures has been happening since about the 1980s. Moreover, there have been several scientific studies that show Hunga Tonga had very little impact on global temperatures (Zhang and others 2022; Zhu and others 2022; Jenkins and others 2023). Andrew Dessler wrote a good summary article on this topic for Climate Brink. "Above the statosphere" as you put it is too high for water vapor to have an impact on climate.
2
But there are products that objectively greener than others.
2
@homewardboundphotos You should try reading scientific literature instead of blogs sponsored by fossil fuel companies. The "global greening" is already starting to turn to browning. e.g. - Chen et al. 2022. Inhibitive effects of recent exceeding air temperature optima of vegetation productivity and increasing water limitation on photosynthesis reversed global greening. Earth's Future, 10 p.e2022EF002788. - Yuan et al. 2019. Increased atmospheric vapor pressure deficit reduces global vegetation growth. Science advances, 5(8), p.eaax1396. - Treharne et al. 2019. Arctic browning: Impacts of extreme climatic events on heathland ecosystem CO2 fluxes. Global Change Biology, 25, 489-503. - Pan et al. 2018. Increasing global vegetation browning hidden in overall vegetation greening: Insights from time-varying trends. Remote Sensing of Environment, 214, 59-72.
2
@slooob23 Who's been punished? Any specific examples?
2
@heinrich6294 Who said anything about blowing up? 🙄
2
@sandyo974 Some rich people are stupid and don't understand the science any more than you do.
2
Some example references for you to read: # Lacis et al. 2013. The role of long-lived greenhouse gases as principal LW control knob that governs the global surface temperature for past and future climate change. Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 65(1), p.19734; # Osman et al. 2021. Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature, 599(7884): 239-244.# Ramaswamy et al. 2006. Anthropogenic and natural influences in the evolution of lower stratospheric cooling. Science, 311(5764):1138-1141. # Supran et al. 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063.
2
@slooob23 Where are most crops grown? Where is most land currently situated?
2
 @JoshuahnJackstonburg So you'll also know that back when CO2 was much higher that Solar Output was less.... There was also no farming or human civilisation.
2
@lavonnetraylor8403 Plants don't just need CO2. They also need minerals and water. Also as it gets hotter, pest species become more of a problem. Global greening has already started to turn to browning.
2
@lavonnetraylor8403 China have an impressive tree planting program but you never hear about it on Fox news.
2
@old-pete You have the patience of a saint.
2
@matthewkuhl79 Much of the ice sits on land. Ice also provides greater albedo. The sea level will not recede as testified by the geological record.
2
@rickmorgan9715 LMAO, you clearly don't know many people in insurance. They are increasing premiums for coastal properties all the time. For some places they aren't even offering policies.
2
@chriselson7413 Regional warmth doesn't mean global warmth does it?
1
@jameyl5147 BTW, one of my previous lecturers has published on Dansgaard-Oeschger and he would very much disagree with your implication that they can explain the current rapid warming. The claim is not supported by any evidence. It's wishful thinking on your part. He would instead point out that D-O events show that the climate is an ill tempered beast and that continuously adding extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is a really bad idea.
1
@fabienlouvel5536 We know that coastal regionals have been flooded previously. Much of the sea level rise is due to thermal expansion not just ice melt. Also there is a lag time. Sea level keeps rising....
1
@Jonhobbs64 LOL.... and? No one is trying the get rid of CO2 completely.
1
@McMinderbinder Some example references for you to read: - Lacis et al. 2013. The role of long-lived greenhouse gases as principal LW control knob that governs the global surface temperature for past and future climate change. Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 65(1), p.19734. - Osman et al. 2021. Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature, 599(7884): 239-244. - Ramaswamy et al. 2006. Anthropogenic and natural influences in the evolution of lower stratospheric cooling. Science, 311(5764):1138-1141. - Supran et al. 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063.
1
@einsam_aber_frei Many countries have spend millions on flood defences but are still losing land to coastal erosion. Engineers are currently designing planes to deal with greater turbulence. The one industry that is ahead of the game and saw sea level rise and more intense storms coming is the oil industry. They invested in their infrastructure in the 70s and 80s whilst simultaneously spending millions on advertorials telling people there was no problem.
1
@chriselson7413 Plants and crops are adapted to deal with changes in season. They are not adapted to deal with rapid changes in climate. This is basic biology. Human civilisation requires some predictability. Global warming will cause unstable climates. Global greening has already starting to turn to browning.
1
The majority of scientific literature of the 1970s predicted anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 over the coming decades (as is currently evident). For example read: - Peterson, T.C., Connolley, W.M. and Fleck, J., 2008. The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(9), pp.1325-1338. And yes that included scientists working at Exxon: - Supran, G., Rahmstorf, S. and Oreskes, N., 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063. There are even studies from the 1960s that predicted anthropogenic warming due to CO2, e.g. - Revelle, R., W. Broecker, H. Craig, C. D. Kneeling, and J. Smagorinsky, 1965: Restoring the Quality of Our Environment: Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel. President's Science Advisory Committee, The White House, 317 pp Most of the articles in the 1970s that that did discuss cooling were referring to Milankovitch cycles and cooling that would take place in 1000s of years. Moreover, several of these (e.g. Douglas 1975 SciNews) acknowledge the "increasingly important" effect of anthropogenic global warming due to CO2. It is true that there were a few TV shows that sensationalised the idea of global cooling. These include a TV Show called "In Search of..." The same show also had episodes on ESP, bigfoot, Voodoo, and the Loch Ness Monster. 🙃
1
@chriselson7413 You should look up mass extinction event, e.g. Song et al. 2021. Thresholds of temperature change for mass extinctions. Nature communications, 12, 4694.
1
@slooob23 Glacial retreat was also predicted by scientists. Are you going to deny that glaciers are retreating?
1
@slooob23 Even global greening and then browning was predicted by scientists.
1
 @slooob23 Perhaps climate scientists just know a lot of things that you don't.
1
@slooob23 Nope, between 1995 and 2020 insurance payments to farmers due to drought rose more than 400% to $1.65 billion whereas payments due to flooding rose nearly 300% to $2.61 billion. If you care about facts, not feelings, you can look this data up with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
1
@slooob23 LOL, it's hilarious that you accuse others of not knowing "how the world works" and yet you try to push a dumb and reductive narrative of warming = better.
1
@slooob23 Droughts and floods are not new, no one claimed that they were, but in many parts of the world they ARE increasing due to global warming driven by anthropogenic CO2. Intensification of farming cannot explain the way that the costs have increased alone but intensification make the industry and system more vulnerable to regional climate changes and extreme weather. You should try talking to some farmers.
1
Yes, we do. That value is based on multiple lines of evidence including the decay of various isotopes and independently the growth lines in animals which record days of the year that match those expected given planetary orbits (See papers by John Wells and Girogo Pannella). Fossils that isotopes indicate are 500 million years ago show growth lines representing 412 days in the year which is near exactly what would be expected given the known rotational decay of the the Earth.
1
@slooob23 In 1967 Manabe and Wetherald predicted in Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences predicted stratospheric cooling due to CO2 restricting heat from leaving the troposphere. Again that is happening as predicted.
1
For understanding past temperatures at the equator, climate scientists study mud cores, coral cores, etc.
1
The dinosaurs are still around in the form of birds.
1
@slooob23 Jim Hansen predicted that it would warmer faster in the high latitudes than the lower latitudes. Again that has happened and is happening.
1
@JoyPeace-ej2uv Scientists do indeed study water evaporation and the amount of atmospheric moisture (=water vapour) in great detail. Like CO2, water vapour is a greenhouse gas but the amount held in the air is tightly linked to air temperature. Worryingly, total atmospheric moisture content over oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. This increase in water vapour was made possible by the warming due to CO2 and compounds the warming caused by CO2. Water vapour is an amplifier. Scientists know these things and can measure them. Sadly many politicians and business leaders have not listened and just want business as usual. e.g. - Santer et al. 2007. Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), pp.15248-15253.
1
@Platinum1812 It's already happening. You are the one who is gullible believing the propaganda from oil companies.
1
@slooob23 Name a scientific paper that predicted and ice free arctic by 2024? They predicted reduced glacial volume which has happened and is happening.
1
@slooob23 Your analogy only works if you think the church represents the oil industry with power, money, and influence and Galileo represents Sawyer, Benson, Hansen, Lacis, Manabe, Wetherald, Mann, and several other scientists that have actual evidence and or have made predictions that have come true.
1
@Platinum1812 It's so cute you don't think oil companies are trying to control you. 😂 Please listen to Amy Westervelt's podcast Drilled. It's an excellent entry level resource into the extensive topic.
1
@slooob23 You should listen to Drilled by Amy Westervelt if you care about this topics.
1
@McMinderbinder Some example references for you to read: - Lacis et al. 2013. The role of long-lived greenhouse gases as principal LW control knob that governs the global surface temperature for past and future climate change. Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 65(1), p.19734. - Osman et al. 2021. Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature, 599(7884): 239-244. - Ramaswamy et al. 2006. Anthropogenic and natural influences in the evolution of lower stratospheric cooling. Science, 311(5764):1138-1141. - Supran et al. 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063.
1
@homewardboundphotos You should try reading scientific literature instead of blogs sponsored by fossil fuel companies. The "global greening" is already starting to turn to browning (as predicted by scientists), e.g. - Chen et al. 2022. Inhibitive effects of recent exceeding air temperature optima of vegetation productivity and increasing water limitation on photosynthesis reversed global greening. Earth's Future, 10(11), p.e2022EF002788. - Yuan et al. 2019. Increased atmospheric vapor pressure deficit reduces global vegetation growth. Science advances, 5(8), p.eaax1396.
1
@slooob23 You are half correct. The topic has been flooded by disinformation paid for by fossil fuel interests since the 1980s. This fact is well documented by Supran and others. Thankfully people like Richard Muller (funded by the fossil fuel industry) changed their mind after considering the totality of actual scientific evidence. If you care about facts and evidence you should listen to the podcast Drilled by Amy Westervelt and read the scientific literature (not disinformation blogs).
1
@slooob23 It's not me who decides how poorly written a comment has to be before it is deleted. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1
@AapVanDieKaap No, the climate models, even those from the 1970s (including that made by Exxon) predict relatively rapid warming consistent with what is shown by recent observations. It's highly likely you've read some bad-faith blog that presents one of the predictions made by James Hansen (scenario A) without admitting that the differences are due to a high end estimate of future CO2 emissions. The relationship between CO2 and temperature was accurate: the warming per unit change in forcing predicted by Hansen et al. 1988 is very close to what we’ve actually experienced. It’s also noteworthy that Hansen’s 1988 study accurately predicted the geographic pattern of global warming: the Arctic region warming fastest plus more warming over land masses than the oceans. e.g. - Hausfather, Z., Drake, H.F., Abbott, T. and Schmidt, G.A., 2020. Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(1), p.e2019GL085378. - Supran, G., Rahmstorf, S. and Oreskes, N., 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063.
1
@peaceondeath2319 If your comment is referring to my mention of "advertorials" then I suggest you put "oil advertorials" into a search engine. You should find extensive examples and associated articles reviewing them. Big oil did not (always) state directly that there is no global warming (I didn't claim that they did) but they certainly spread disinformation. The topic has been extensively investigated by people such as Robert Brulle, Naomi Oreskes, and Amy Westervelt. Major US Oil and gas companies have spent billions on corporate propaganda.
1
@homewardboundphotos And regarding wine vineyards.... You should try reading scientific literature instead of blogs written by hacks or sponsored by fossil fuel companies. Plants also need water and minerals and many crops react badly to increased pests. The "global greening" has already starting to turn to browning. e.g. - Chen et al. 2022. Inhibitive effects of recent exceeding air temperature optima of vegetation productivity and increasing water limitation on photosynthesis reversed global greening. Earth's Future, 10(11), p.e2022EF002788. - Yuan et al. 2019. Increased atmospheric vapor pressure deficit reduces global vegetation growth. Science advances, 5(8), p.eaax1396. - Treharne et al. 2019. Arctic browning: Impacts of extreme climatic events on heathland ecosystem CO2 fluxes. Global Change Biology, 25(2), pp.489-503. - Pan et al. 2018. Increasing global vegetation browning hidden in overall vegetation greening: Insights from time-varying trends. Remote Sensing of Environment, 214, pp.59-72.
1
@McMinderbinder Sorry to destroy your comforting fiction but the current rapid warming cannot be explained by orbital forcing or natural glacial-interglacial cycles. Climate scientists understand the glacial-interglacial cycles very well and scientists know the position of the Earth and where we are along the cycles currently. The warming from the last ice age levelled off about 6000 yeas ago and it's not expected to get cold again for another 16000 years. The current relatively rapid warming is due to anthropogenic CO2 as predicted by many scientist since 1896 (including Exxon's own scientists in the 1970s). We know atmospheric CO2 has increased because it can be measured, and we know that the extra CO2 is due to burning fossil fuels (not volcanoes) because the isotope ratio has shifted towards C12. Moreover, if the warming was due to orbital or solar cycles we wouldn't be experiencing stratospheric cooling which we are. Some example references for you to read: - Lacis et al. 2013. The role of long-lived greenhouse gases as principal LW control knob that governs the global surface temperature for past and future climate change. Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 65(1), p.19734. - Osman et al. 2021. Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature, 599(7884): 239-244. - Ramaswamy et al. 2006. Anthropogenic and natural influences in the evolution of lower stratospheric cooling. Science, 311(5764):1138-1141. - Supran et al. 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063.
1
@AapVanDieKaap No, the models have been accurate including those made by Exxon in the 1970s. It's likely that you've seen Jim Hansen's predictions misrepresented on climate blogs linked to fossil fuel employee Patrick Michaels. They only show scenario A in bad-faith without acknowledging the reason it is off is because it under estimated how much carbon emissions would be cut. The relationship between global warming and temperature was correct as shown by the most up to date measurements from a range of sources. - Hausfather et al 2020. Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(1), p.e2019GL085378. - Supran, G., Rahmstorf, S. and Oreskes, N., 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063.
1
@slooob23 It's not surprising you've chosen to ignore the sound science that I referred too.
1
@AapVanDieKaap Nope, you clearly don't understand what a calibration is. The data from multiple satellites, ground stations (rural), ground stations (urban), ships, buoys, corals, sponges, cherry trees etc. all show warming. The skeptics like Richard Lindzen that said it would not warm or it would cool have been proven wrong.
1
@AapVanDieKaap Look up the data from Berkeley Earth. Richard A Muller was a skeptic and changed his mind. You should too.
1
@homewardboundphotos It's clearly not unimaginably small number - it was calculated. Again it illustrates you don't actually care about facts, accuracy, or reality.
1
@homewardboundphotos If you knew anything about this topic you would know that many of the fishermen have reduced their carbon footprint as far as possible and are currently suing oil companies for they damage they have knowingly caused.
1
@homewardboundphotos It was also just one example. Crop insurance indemnity payouts due to drought in the US is now up to $7,500,000,000.00. That's the third-costliest year for the program since 1990 and there is general upward trend.
1
@homewardboundphotos Again you ignored the actual scientific publications on greening turning to browning.
1
It's not surprising at at all given the millions that Exx0n and other oil companies spent on propaganda in the 1980s and 1990s etc. Listen to the podcast Drilled by Amy Westervelt.
1
@MrHarumakiSensei Sorry to destroy your comforting fiction but the current rapid warming cannot be explained by orbital forcing or natural glacial-interglacial cycles. Climate scientists understand the glacial-interglacial cycles very well and scientists know the position of the Earth and where we are along the cycles currently. The warming from the last ice age levelled off about 6000 yeas ago and it's not expected to get cold again for another 16000 years. The current relatively rapid warming is due to anthropogenic CO2 as predicted by many scientist since 1896 (including Exxon's own scientists in the 1970s). We know atmospheric CO2 has increased because it can be measured, and we know that the extra CO2 is due to burning fossil fuels (not volcanoes) because the isotope ratio has shifted towards C12. Moreover, if the warming was due to orbital or solar cycles we wouldn't be experiencing stratospheric cooling which we are.
1
As bad as the government is they are still generally less nefarious and reckless than private industry. If it wasn't for government most of us would already be dead from CFCs destroying the ozone layer. Look up Du Pont's record on microplastics, Purdue's record on oxycontin, the oil industry record on oil well clean up, or big tobacco in general. Big private companies constantly ignore or push back against regulations meant to protect public health.
1
Back to the OP, for anyone that reads scientific literature you should look up the paper by Gehrels and Woodworth in Planetary Change from 2013 titled "When did modern rates of sea-level rise start?" It says "We find that within a 40 year period, centred around 1925, sea-level rise in all sites started to exceed the late Holocene background rate. This is consistent with local tide-gauge records and also with global and regional tide-gauge compilations. We conclude that proxy and instrumental sea-level datasets record a similar 20th century inflexion. Possible mismatches identified in published literature are therefore reconciled. We suggest that northern hemisphere ice melt, primarily from the Greenland Ice Sheet and small Arctic glaciers, is the main driving mechanism of early 20th century sea-level rise." Further research back that conclusion up.
1
LIA wasn't global and probably not that cold either. We know that the recent extra CO2 isn't from volcanoes because of isotope ratios.
1
@old-pete You are correct.
1
@slooob23 There is nothing bad faith about me laughing at your suggestion. I am laughing out loud both honestly and sincerely. Your comment deserved a LOL particularly after some of your other comments.
1
So you've never heard of corals, sponges, ice cores, or Europe then? 😂
1
@stuartkeeton1702 And yet it's still warming as shown by multiple independent parallel data sets (urban stations, rural stations, satellites, ship sensors, buoys, corals, sponges, plus data from cherry trees, butterflies, dragons flies) just as scientists have said it would warm due to their research in the 1970s and earlier. That includes scientists based at Exxon. Perhaps there is a lot climate scientists know that you don't.
1
@stuartkeeton1702 Look the recent study on long lived sponges. They have annual data points going back 300 years. McCulloch et al. 2024. 300 years of sclerosponge thermometry shows global warming has exceeded 1.5° C. Nature Climate Change, pages 1-7.
1
😂🤣😂🤣
1
@Tazdeviloo7 How is heat from nuclear contributing? Please explain.
1
No, not really. There's been an exponential rise in disinformation and bad faith nonsense from physics denying grifters.
1
@dean9722 Part of the reason your tax bill is so high is because the government is subsidising the Ponzi scheme that us shale gas exploration. You are also having pay towards the clean up of disused oil wells.
1
@peaceondeath2319 Google 0il company advertorials.
1
@jameyl5147 If you knew this topic at all you'd know that when blogs claim that a study proves global warming is a hoax it's inevitably flawed or a bad faith misrepresentation. One side is lying and it's not the climate scientists, atmospheric scientists, palaeontologists, and geologists.
1
@jameyl5147 You stated "the problem with quoting scientific studies in this field is that any dissenting voices are muted." You are very explicitly dismissing quoting scientific studies. You then go on to claim that there conflicting studies that are valid but provide none. You also claim that some scientists have lost their jobs but provide no examples. You then go on to assert that net zero is next to impossible which is not actually relevant to the cause of the current warming. It's pretty obvious you choose to reject what the totality of evidence indicates because you personally don't like some of the solutions proposed by some people.
1
The Sun was less powerful 500 million years ago. The Ordovician glaciations occurred due to a dip in CO2 levels. We know that the recent rise in CO2 isn't due to volcanos due to isotope ratios.
1
@jameyl5147 Oh dear... is Judith Curry your best example? The lab she previously worked in at Berkeley was funded precisely because the lab head Richard Muller disagreed with other climate scientists. After carefully studying the data himself Richard Muller now agrees with the vast majority of evidence that global temperatures are rapidly rising and that it is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as CO2.
1
@jameyl5147 By your logic dinosaurs didn't evolve from birds because 99% of palaeontologists have come to that conclusion and the "scientific model is broken".
1
@jameyl5147 Not at all relevant given the weight of evidence available to geologists, palaeontologists, physicists, chemists, oceanographers etc.
1
So what does the Milankovitch cycles suggest we should expect from the past 100 years and next 200 years?
1
@campland2880 Yes, I've seen it. It's full of the usual long debunked claims. It certainly does not reflect science and Tony Heller is a known liar.
1
When have the governments fear mongered about climate change beyond correctly saying we must find ways to cut emissions? As for the mainstream media it's generally right wing trash printing hysterical headlines for clicks. They couldn't care less about educating people and actually like the fact their exaggerations cause a backlash against the science. Just ignore the mainstream media and educate yourself using the scientific literature.
1
@Sure-t9o No, you are misinformed. Climate scientists understand the climate very well. The scientists that study past climate change are the same scientist that have discovered that the current climate change it due to anthropogenic CO2. 1. Burning fossil fuel releases CO2. We can estimate how much extra CO2 burning fossil fuel is putting in the atmosphere. Several different people have done this independently. We can also now actually measure where the extra CO2 is coming from using satellites. It's coming from where humans live: cities and industrial areas. See e.g. Crisp, D., 2015, September. Measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide from space with the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2). In Earth observing systems xx (Vol. 9607, p. 960702). SPIE. 2. The proportion of carbon 12 vs carbon 13 in the atmosphere is increasing. That shows that the extra CO2 is due to burning fossil fuels not volcanoes. h 3. Other factors such as variation in solar luminosity, the orbit and rotation of the Earth, and even clouds have all been studied and cannot account for the current warming. The way the Earth has warmed is also consistent with CO2. See e.g. Henry, M. and Vallis, G.K., 2021. Reduced high-latitude land seasonality in climates with very high carbon dioxide. Journal of Climate, 34(17), pp.7325-7336. 4. Several climate models from th e1970s (including those made by Exxon) have predicted the relationship of CO2 and global warming very well. e.g. Supran, G., Rahmstorf, S. and Oreskes, N., 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063. 6. Big oil pay scientist far better than government grants do and have far more impact on what happens to the results discovered. If you can't read the scientific literature, Potholer54 and Simon Clark have very good undergraduate level videos of these topics.
1
The governments have resisted climate action every step of the way. They are effectively on side of the skeptics and big oil.
1
@donaldcarey114 Utter nonsense. The petrochemical industry spend millions on "educational" material which is used in schools. Amy Westervelt has covered this topic extensively in Drilled.
1
@JesusFriedChrist it's already slightly warmer and slightly greener but there are no signs of levelling off. Greening is already turning to browning.
1
@mikeofallon What science doesn't hold up?
1
@ddwieland You clearly know little of this subject. Please talk to atmospheric physicist, geologist, or ecologist.
1
It's at least partly because there was a drop in atmospheric CO2 and the Sun was less powerful than it is today.
1
Ivor Cummings has already been debunked by Potholer54. He is not someone to take seriously.
1
@campland2880 Tony Heller is a Sandy Hook conspiracist and spreads disinformation. He's not a scientist.
1
@Sev_Orib_Cornhouse_RealTV It's because climate deniers willfully engage in bad faith discussion.
1
@campland2880 Yes, watch Climate the Cold Truth and laugh at the rehashed debunked garbage. It's hilariously bad.
1
@slooob23 Many scientists (including those at Exxon in the 1970s) predicted global warming due to a rise in atmospheric CO2 and that has also happened with a relationship similar to that predicted.
1