Comments by "Marc Jones" (@QT5656) on "Dr Ben Miles" channel.

15:30 So anthropogenic emissions have warmed the planet enough to trigger new natural methane release.
19
@socratesrocks1513 Nope, you have the basic facts mixed up there. For the last 800,000 years, CO2 oscillated naturally between 170 and 300. Since 1750 burning fossil fuels has increased CO2 to over 420 ppm. That's a lot more than 4%.
9
@kennyg1358 Overall both are losing volume. You've been misled.
5
Nope, incorrect. Both the Arctic and the Antarctic are losing ice volume.
4
@kennyg1358 Your comment will age badly. The evidence is not on your side. Read the science not misleading blogs.
3
@kennyg1358 Which evidence has been tampered with? Please be specific. Do you think satellite data taken from different altitudes should be used raw without any calibration. 😂
3
@kennyg1358 Which evidence has been "tampered" with? Please be specific. Do you think satellite data taken from different altitudes and at different times of the day should be used raw without calibration?
3
@RealDealTexas Tripati et al. 2009. Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years. Science: "The carbon dioxide (CO2) content of the atmosphere has varied cyclically between ~180 and ~280 parts per million by volume over the past 800,000 years, closely coupled with temperature and sea level."
2
@RealDealTexas @RealDealTexas See also Shakun et al. 2012 Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation Nature: "antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age." Simply put: "orbital cycles and feedback from CO2".
2
@glenw-xm5zf If other scientists say otherwise then those scientists are incapable of presenting data honestly. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and continental ice sheets are losing volume. Those are facts.
1
@glenw-xm5zf No, a small number of retired scientists working for Clintel or the Heartland institute cherry pick data to muddy the water. Enjoy your comforting lies.
1
Nope, the real question is how much is it going to cost not to further cut emissions?
1
 @TheEryk03 😂 Did you not actually watch the video?
1
@socratesrocks1513 The current rapid warming cannot be explained by orbital variation or variation in the Sun. Both are measurable and known. Work by Mathew Osman, Richard Alley, Christopher Scotese, Andrew Lacis, Syukuro Manabe, Richard Wetherald, Jim Hansen and many others confirm that the current warming is due to CO2.
1
@notsure1350 What isn't happening?
1
 @MrJeffcoley1 You should look up Professor Richard Muller at Berkeley to test your speculative theory.
1
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The recent rapid warming is mainly due to extra CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.
1
@honeybadgerisme No, a polar wobble would be measurable and doesn't operate on the right timescale. It's CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
1
@honeybadgerisme Yes, measurable enough to know it's not significant. Planetary wobble cannot account for the recent rapid warming. It's CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That's why high latitudes are warming faster than low latitudes, nights are warming faster than days, winters are warming faster than summers, and the stratosphere is cooling. Other explanations are based on wishful thinking rather than actual evidence.
1
@Petee2024 No, nonsense. Minor variations in Solar output cannot account for the recent rapid rise in temperatures or stratosphere is cooling. It's CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That's why high latitudes are warming faster than low latitudes, nights are warming faster than days, winters are warming faster than summers. Other explanations are based on wishful thinking promoted by the oil industry rather than actual evidence.
1