MT4 Indicator & EA Coder

I am a real meteorologist, numb nuts. This is publicly verifiable information. Don't believe me? Give the link below a little click. 🔗millersville.edu/egem/degree… Let's now address your three points one by one. 1️⃣ “It establishes a natural equilibrium” The “pre-industrial” atmosphere was not in a magical state of climatic equilibrium. Earth's climate has never been static, and neither have atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations. During the last glacial maximum, CO₂ concentrations were ~180 parts per million by volume (ppmv). During previous interglacial cycles it was closer to 280 ppm. Over much longer timescales, CO₂ concentrations have been substantially higher; we're talking several thousand ppm in parts of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic periods when life flourished. 🔗ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downl… (pp. 298–301; Table 2.1) Although CO₂ concentrations have remained within a ~10–20 ppm range throughout most of the current interglacial cycle, temperatures most certainly haven't in the slightest. The Holocene has featured substantial multidecadal and centennial temperature swings under that fairly stable CO₂ backdrop. For instance, the Holocene Thermal Maximum (~9,000–5,000 years ago), the Medieval Warm Period (~900–1300 AD), and the Little Ice Age (~1300–1850 AD), among other rapid climate change intervals documented in multi-proxy compilations (e.g., Mayewski et al., 2004; pp. 243–245, 251–252). 🔗sciencedirect.com/science/ar… Regional reconstructions and historical records show the Medieval Warm Period was warm enough in many regions to support expanded agriculture and human settlement in higher latitudes, while the Little Ice Age brought glacier advances, crop failures and famine, and colder conditions across much of the Northern Hemisphere all the while atmospheric CO₂ levels were fairly stable in the 270–290 ppm range. There have been several attempts to either minimize or erase Holocene climate variability (e.g., Mann et al., 1998, 1999; Kaufman et al., 2009; and PAGES2K). These graphs are often called “hockey sticks” due to the relatively stable global / Northern Hemispheric mean temperature shown over the last 2,000 years, and unprecedented spike in the 20th century. McIntyre & McKitrick (2005), however, were able to demonstrate that MBH (1998, 1999)'s unconventional data-centering procedure preferentially weighted tree ring proxies exhibiting hockey stick-shaped patterns higher (primarily high-elevation bristlecone and foxtail pine). Through Monte Carlo simulations, M&M (2005) found that MBH's methodology produced hockey-stick-shaped first principal components in more than 99% of simulations using persistent, trendless red noise. In layman terms, the statistical procedure MBH used could generate the characteristic hockey stick-shape even when the proxy data contained no actual temperature trend when averaged correctly. Furthermore, just 15 bristlecone and foxtail pine sites accounted for ~93% of the variance in the critical North American first principal component. When the conventional principal component analysis (PCA) centering was applied to the same proxy network, the resulting first principal component no longer exhibited the same pronounced hockey-stick shape. This is shown in Fig. 3 from M&M (2005) below. 🔗agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.… Subsequent reconstructions, including PAGES2K and Kaufman et al. (2009), have also faced methodological criticism from McIntyre. They screen proxies based on correlation with the relatively short modern instrumental period (which select proxies that track the recent increase in temperatures since 1850) and use careful methodological choices that dampen pre-industrial climate variability while emphasizing modern global warming. 🔗threadreaderapp.com/thread/1… 🔗climateaudit.org/2009/09/03/… 🔗climateaudit.org/2014/10/31/… Regardless, the fact that human civilization happened to develop during a period when CO₂ concentrations were ~280 ppm does not establish that 280 ppm is the optimum concentration for natural ecosystems, agriculture, or human prosperity. So, Britbong, I'll ask again, what CO₂ concentration represents the Earth's “natural equilibrium,” and by what objective criterion? 2️⃣ “It isolates anthropogenic impact” No, it doesn't. Not by itself. Comparing today's atmospheric CO₂ concentrations with those reconstructed before industrialization tells us how much concentrations have changed over time. It does not, by itself, establish the climatic response to that change, much less whether those changes will be predominantly beneficial or harmful. We have independent evidence, including carbon isotopic measurements, to prove that mankind's fossil fuel combustion is primarily responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations since the mid-19th century. I don't dispute that and never have. However, quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to the increase in CO₂ is not the same as quantifying the resulting temperature response and other climate-related changes. Those remain separate scientific questions. Strike two. 3️⃣ “It calculates radiative forcing” Once again, no it doesn't, and this right here is where your argument really falls apart. The approximate radiative forcing (RF) from a change in CO₂ concentration is given by: ΔF ≈ 5.35 ln(C/C₀) W m⁻² where C is the new concentration and C₀ is the reference concentration (see Myhre et al., 1998). 🔗agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.… Notice something, Sparky? There is absolutely nothing in that equation requiring C₀ to be 280 ppm. You can calculate the forcing from 280 to 427 ppm, 350 to 427 ppm, or 427 to 854 ppm. The physics don't change depending on which reference concentration you choose. Using the 280-ppm baseline gives us ~2.26 W m⁻² of additional CO₂ RF relative to that concentration. But that calculation does not in any way establish that 280 ppm is the optimal concentration, much less that the additional CO₂ is dangerous, or that returning to 280 ppm would produce a preferable climatic state. Strike three. Wanna rethink some things? Kenny Powers says you're effing out!