How to explain the problematic contradictions?
“Carbon dioxide levels are now comparable to the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, between 4.1 and 4.5 million years ago, when they were close to, or above 400 parts per million. During that time, sea levels were between 5 and 25 meters higher than today, high enough to drown many of the world’s largest modern cities. “
And yet many of the world’s largest modern cities are
not under water. In fact there are no modern cities under water.
sea levels are in fact “between 5 and 25 meters”
lower now than during the Pliocene.
For my American readers that’s 15 to more then 75 feet shallower sea levels- RIGHT NOW. PRESENT TIME. Therefore carbon dioxide levels can’t be the issue. As is claimed.
“ studies indicate that large forests occupied today’s Arctic tundra.”
Now, at this present time, it’s alleged we are experiencing comparable carbon dioxide levels to that bygone time. That’s what is being claimed. Yet the Arctic is not occupied by large forests. It is in fact still occupied by ice, cold and permafrost.
Therefore carbon dioxide levels can’t be the big issue as is repeatedly claimed.
“Within the next 25 years, many glaciers in the Alps, Rocky Mountains”
Shouldn’t they be gone already? Considering the claims made. I’d certainly think so. Always moving the goal posts means the science is refutable. It’s the dogma (a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted) that isn’t.
Aha, my other thought returned!
Also, to the best of our knowledge, massively smaller human populations and no ‘fossil fuels’ in use – How to explain the high carbon levels in very ancient times when one can’t blame humans or ‘fossil fuels’
Meanwhile, share your thoughts.