lt's just another example of a troll cherry picking a specific point in science that appears to suit their argument while rejecting all the other science around it.
E.g. Our troll friend posted a video featuring Jorgen Peder Steffenson talking about the uncertainties and predicted outcomes . Hoping to muddy the waters by introducing doubt . l found it surprising that the troll would use a glaciologist as a reference on this subject. Obviously the troll had desperately looked for something to post without actually watching it first.
A quick google revealed the much more recent video where Steffenson talks about the dramatic effect that climate change will have on the people on the planet .
Certainly not a " nothing to see here " statement.
There is quite a bit of evidence to support the argument that there is a logarithmic effect from co2 concentration. However that is trying to simplify the situation. What it does do is confirm that increasing atmospheric co2 concentration does indeed warm the planet. lt also identifies that emissions from modern living is adding on to the natural cycles. ln other words, man's activity is causing an increase in warming.
What is left out of all this is the fact that co2 levels are increasing exponentially. lf we hadn't started taking action years ago they would be much higher today. Now that the increase in living standards and ' westernisation ' of the world is also going exponential, it is even more important to take action.
We are approaching the point where permafrost is melting. A point where emissions could really get away on us. A real tipping point.
As Steffenson highlights, we might get different levels of warming across the planet and the disruption/reversal of ocean currents. Something would have dramatic effects on weather an mankind.
So, trolls that just try and simplify the argument are just wasting their time. Science is much more complicated than that.
" After zooming in, the logarithm doesn't make such a big difference: it's not far from a straight line. 560ppm will probably take us well beyond the Paris target of 1.5°C, so the 280-560 range is key; we would be unwise to let our civilization go beyond 560.
But human CO2 emissions are increasing exponentially—fast enough that when we plot atmospheric CO2 with a logarithmic scale, it still curves up slightly, even over the last 30 years:
Figure 4
Exponential growth appears as a straight line on a logarithmic chart; an upward curve means, in some sense, faster than exponential growth.1 So if human emissions keep increasing as they have, it makes perfect sense that global warming would speed up.
"But wait," I hear you think, "surely it won't increase exponentially forever?" You're right, of course, it won't, but it could continue for awhile, and in total there are four factors that could work together to speed up warming:
https://skepticalscience.com/why-global-warming-can-accelerate.html
