That is the single most-ignored issue in the climate change debate: is the change *bad*? It is simply assumed to be so.
And yet, glacial periods are ***HORRIBLE*** for a large percentage of terrestrial life. Let's "save the planet" by covering it in ice and killing over half the population of living things on it - sounds great!
The actual issue at hand is the rate of change. It may be that the earth has not experienced current rates of change of CO2 forcing before (due to rates of increase in atmospheric CO2 from fossil sources) so it is easy to suspect that the climate response can not be unanticipated.
Aha! I finally found the most relevant of your blog posts to add this. Your thoughts on delaying reglaciation was apparently also considered back in 1938:
Guy Callendar was a British engineer and amateur meteorologist whose research demonstrated how rising CO2 could warm the planet. His 1938 paper The Artificial Production Of Carbon Dioxide And Its Influence On Temperature...
Callendar concluded, “it may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For instance, the above mentioned small increases of mean temperature would be important at the northern margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourably situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure. In any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely.”
Ha. I recall my Geology lecturer making this observation/speculation back in 1980 in a lecture about trending atmospheric CO2 and climate change. Namely, the origin of our curiously stable and persistent Holocene era.
Deliberately omitted this, I see. Well, I'll note it for future Bible Critics writing. Thanks for the excellent source. "The record indicated that around 6000 years ago, atmospheric methane and carbon dioxide rebounded and rose in concentration, instead of expectedly declining, given the Earth’s orientation in the solar system – its “orbital” configuration – that shapes the Earth’s temperature and carbon and methane geochemistry."
This is all nonsense. All the CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere in the last 10,000 years is nothing compared to one year of volcanos, natural fires, etc. And CO2 doesn't cause warming at all. Rising carbon in the atmosphere is caused by rising temperature. It's all backward. And on top of all that the historical temperature record of actually recorded temps have been tweaked to fit the narrative. And ancient temperature is not known accurately enough to have any validity. In other words, Piltdown Man.
<Fires up the BBQ>
<revs the Jeep>
I hate the cold.
That is the single most-ignored issue in the climate change debate: is the change *bad*? It is simply assumed to be so.
And yet, glacial periods are ***HORRIBLE*** for a large percentage of terrestrial life. Let's "save the planet" by covering it in ice and killing over half the population of living things on it - sounds great!
The actual issue at hand is the rate of change. It may be that the earth has not experienced current rates of change of CO2 forcing before (due to rates of increase in atmospheric CO2 from fossil sources) so it is easy to suspect that the climate response can not be unanticipated.
Aha! I finally found the most relevant of your blog posts to add this. Your thoughts on delaying reglaciation was apparently also considered back in 1938:
Guy Callendar was a British engineer and amateur meteorologist whose research demonstrated how rising CO2 could warm the planet. His 1938 paper The Artificial Production Of Carbon Dioxide And Its Influence On Temperature...
Callendar concluded, “it may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For instance, the above mentioned small increases of mean temperature would be important at the northern margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourably situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure. In any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/06/02/alarmist-scientists-schizophrenia-has-corrupted-the-conclusions-by-early-climate-science-greats/
Ha. I recall my Geology lecturer making this observation/speculation back in 1980 in a lecture about trending atmospheric CO2 and climate change. Namely, the origin of our curiously stable and persistent Holocene era.
Deliberately omitted this, I see. Well, I'll note it for future Bible Critics writing. Thanks for the excellent source. "The record indicated that around 6000 years ago, atmospheric methane and carbon dioxide rebounded and rose in concentration, instead of expectedly declining, given the Earth’s orientation in the solar system – its “orbital” configuration – that shapes the Earth’s temperature and carbon and methane geochemistry."
This is all nonsense. All the CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere in the last 10,000 years is nothing compared to one year of volcanos, natural fires, etc. And CO2 doesn't cause warming at all. Rising carbon in the atmosphere is caused by rising temperature. It's all backward. And on top of all that the historical temperature record of actually recorded temps have been tweaked to fit the narrative. And ancient temperature is not known accurately enough to have any validity. In other words, Piltdown Man.
Everything you have written in your comment is arrant nonsense. There is no way I can sweeten that for you.