Comments by "Bo McGillacutty" (@Mrbfgray) on "How to solve climate change? | Mike Berners Lee | The Anthropocene is bigger than climate change" video.

That's been said for 40 yrs for the same non-scientific 'reasons'. CO2 is a bit player in climate, not remotely THE driver. Medieval Warm period was 1.5C warmer than today and the coldest time in 10,000 yrs was late 1800's , when temp records began.
3
@The-Wide-Angle Not the Medieval Warm period it wasn't -0.4C. NONE of it is because of CO2, that's the point. And what cause the 12C extreme swings in mere decades, only 12.5k yrs ago, Younger Dryass. How about the last 2.5M yrs of mostly devastating glacial maximums punctuated with these relatively brief inner glacial times? None of it's explained by CO2 but we've been extremely close to CO2 levels so low it would destroy the biosphere as we know it, during glacial maximums. Good case to be made that more CO2 is better than less, certainly better for plant life, crop yields and so on.
2
@The-Wide-Angle The extreme low CO2 levels of recent millions of yrs have coincided with erratic devastating swings. There is no reason to expect more historic normalization of CO2 will make things worse. Life thrived at 7000ppm. Solar variability appears to be a far better predictor of climate, and certainly Milankovitch cycles which we also can't control. There is no good reason to expect the arbitrary low 300ppm is better than 600ppm, or 0.03% vs 0.06%. It's a trace gas that we can't live without and a major factor in increased crop yields over last half century. High value greenhouse crops often are raised to 2000ppm for greatly increased yields, 4000 is even better but not worth the extra cost typically. In either case--pollinators and ppl, etc., are not apparently effected. If you live in a modern relatively airtight home, 2000 plus is common inside. And if you have a salt water aquarium? The coral is does fine.
2
@The-Wide-Angle I've seen the data for myself. Unfortunately today, peer review often means squat, at least in the completely corrupted climate 'science' where no one questioning popular dogma can participate. That's a highly unscientific way to proceed. NASA and NOAA have even gone back to "correct" data to fit the narrative, in some instances (they give other reasons but I don't buy it, just too convenient). Sounds wild but it is what it is. They want to erase the Medieval Warm Period, the record highs in USA of 1930's, etc. Inconvenient data. Google is also assumed censorious until proven innocent. Sure as hell censored crucial info during covid on YouTube.
2
There is no crisis, complete fabrication divorced from data and science.
1
We don't control climate, we can't even predict it. The system is far FAR bigger than anything we have or can do presently. CO2 is a bit player, not remotely THE driver.
1
@someguy2135 Have you actually indulged in the SCIENCE? The data, mechanisms and history of climate? It can't be found here nor virtually any popular media site. So what are you basing your opinions on? Why do you believe XYZ?
1
Suicide?
1
@The-Wide-Angle Aprox 1.5C higher in Medieval Warm Period, not disputable, IDK what you are talking about, if averaging over longer time period including Little Ice Age, it can be lower than today by fraction of a degree. How do you account for Warm Period, Little Ice Age or regular devastating ice ages. Can't be CO2! Water vapor accounts for 70% of greenhouse effect and a host of other gasses make up the rest, CO2 a small player that diminishes as it increases, that is each additional amount add has less effect than the prior same additional increase. YES there is a tight corolation, most of the time, between CO2 levels and temperature, as often as not, CO2 lags temperature, not the other way around. That makes sense as oceans harbor 40X more than the atmosphere and warmer water holds less CO2. So which is driving which? Seems to be temp driving CO2, not the other way around, prior to humanities influence at least.
1
@The-Wide-Angle Also interesting that the Warm Period was one of prosperity (for Europe at least) and Little Ice Age one of famine, chaos and collapse. It's common knowledge in Switzerland and Norway, for example, that old artifacts of human passage over mountain passes, that were until recently, under ice, have recently been revealed. Therefore it was similarly ice free back then. Were the Roman's chariots to blame? Don't think they had SUVs.
1
@The-Wide-Angle To clarify the 1.5C, could have been 1.4 and it was the peak I believe, not necessarily the average over that time frame. But it's relevant regardless, we may be experiencing a peak right now, we don't know. Climate models don't work, we can't predict what will happen later this century let alone when the next glacial max is coming, could also be this century and CO2 won't likely save us from it, but should slightly mitigate the risk of dropping to levels that end the biosphere as we know it, the next time colder oceans absorb 'half' of atmospheric CO2 again. We are late in this interglacial period historically and they can come pretty quickly, better warmer than colder.
1
@The-Wide-Angle Already told you. The point is, that even if it's 0.4C, it's still significant and cannot be about CO2, certainly not about anthropogenic CO2. Right? Same for Little Ice Age and all the rest I mentioned previously.
1