Are Star Trek's roads about to come to a city near you?

[sdfgeoff]

There are only two things that I disagree with here:

---

I don’t question the climate is changing, I’m just skeptical that one can conclude that humanity can suddenly override 1000’s of years of natural shifts before we even know all of the variables (noting that a brutal ‘little ice age’ period was occurring just over 200 years ago. There’s also been a lot of model runs from the 90’s that are by no means matching observed data so it also doesn’t help that case either.

We know how much oil we are burning from the amount being sold. Hence we can calculate the amount of carbon dioxide humanity is emitting. Right? Surprise, it matches the increase in the atmospheric levels very very accurately.
So now we know, almost as a fact, that humanity is the cause for increased carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. Right?

So can we link the CO2 to the global temperature? Turns out we can. By modeling the Earth as a simple container we get:
Change in Global Temperature = Energy from sun - Energy reflected from earth

We know the energy output from the sun. And we can model the energy reflected from Earth as two components:

• Energy reflected by atmosphere
• Energy reflected from ground minus the energy the atmosphere reflects back in. (If it reflected on the way in, it must also reflect on the way out, right?)

See where I’m going with this? Increase the CO2 content, and more light is reflected from Earth (cooling it), but more heat is trapped (heating it). The question is, which is happening faster?
Some simple physical laws govern this, but instead of looking at those, I’ll point you at the planet Venus. It’s not the closest to the sun, but it is the hottest because it has the highest levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So we can establish a link linking CO2 levels to temperature of the planet.

So we have a link saying that humans have output CO2 into the atmosphere in a scientifically measurable and significant way.
We also have a link joining increased CO2 with increased temperature.

What assumptions have I made here? Very very few. Just that a planet can be modeled the same way as any other container for energy and the correlation and causation of the CO2 emitted and measured. But seriously, what else would match it so exactly?

---

Scientists are forced to agree with something they know isn’t true just to continue to get funding to continue their work.

This is the one part of the debate that I most strongly disagree with.
Did you see those pie graphs I posted above. So you are saying that someone is paying 13,950 people full time to ‘create’ climate change. The cost of this would be staggering. Call it 10,000 people, full time for 3 years to research and study climate change. 40 hour weeks, 45 of them a year. Even a low wage of, say, $20 an hour brings the cost to 10.8 trillion dollars. Actual costs for a researcher are far higher, and the number would stretch into the next order of magnitude.
So from a money point of view. Why would they? What could earn anyone or any government or any organization more than the cost of paying those people. Even if the pi chart is wrong, and people are just ‘going with the flow,’ so there are only 5000 people, it would still cost 5 trillion. I seriously doubt it.

Also, apply Occams Razor

Also, apply free speech. Out of those 5000 bribed people, surely one would have said something about being paid against scientific fact?

Finally, I will quote my earlier post:

We had three lectures on climate modeling in one of my uni course. Not climate change modeling, just climate modeling. By the end of it, 400 engineering students were all firm believers in climate change, despite many initial misgivings and the lectures not actually being about it.

Are you suggesting that someone paid all 400 of us? Or are you saying that the maths they taught us is incorrect? Or are you suggesting that the physics upon which that maths is founded is somehow biased and works in every case we can do in a lab but not on a larger system?
Bear in mind that during those lectures, they did not present us with any new concepts. They worked with ideas we already knew from our Physics course (and had proved in labs), as well as drawing on material we learned at school and knew out of common sense. Is somehow that physics invalidated?

[Morio]

@sdfgeoff

We know the energy output from the sun. And we can model the energy reflected from Earth as two components:

• Energy reflected by atmosphere
• Energy reflected from ground minus the energy the atmosphere reflects back in. (If it reflected on the way in, it must also reflect on the way out, right?)

It’s not really as simple as that. You are completely ignoring your original worry about solar panels, i.e. the absorbed energy that causes the solar panel to heat up. The heat emission from such a source can not be treated the same way as light reflected from the earth.

Visible light from the sun passes through the atmosphere without too much trouble (the colors of the earth are very vivid when looking from space). The thermal radiation re-emitted by the earth, however, has a longer wavelength and is thus reflected more efficiently by the atmosphere.

[sdfgeoff]

It’s not really as simple as that. You are completely ignoring your original worry about solar panels, i.e. the absorbed energy that causes the solar panel to heat up.

In my model I use the line ‘Energy reflected from ground’ and that incorporates the absorption of energy by the ground.

If you like I can defend my position even if I did completely ignore that using the following argument:
I assumed the earth was 100% reflective. I ignored the fact that ~20% of the energy is absorbed and assumed that all of it was dealt with by the atmosphere. So it is the best case scenario. If I accounted for the absorbtion of the Earth, the situation would be worse.

Either way, because I was not dealing with actual numbers, if makes no difference to my conclusion.

The heat emission from such a source can not be treated the same way as light reflected from the earth.

Really? Actually, it can. The basics of this model is the black body radiation method.
Let’s assume we have a completely back object (no reflection) and shine a light onto it. We are putting energy into the system. Where does the energy go? The photons from the light source excite the atoms in the black body and cause them to … heat up!
Thus light absorption is equal to heat absorption for completely black objects. Of course, we don’t deal with completely black object, but the same theorem still applies. If 30% of the light is reflected, then the other 70% of the lights energy must go somewhere: into heat.

Visible light from the sun passes through the atmosphere without too much trouble (the colors of the earth are very vivid when looking from space). The thermal radiation re-emitted by the earth, however, has a longer wavelength and is thus reflected more efficiently by the atmosphere.

Yup, correct. It’s reflected more efficiently, but because it’s source is Earth, it ends up back in Earth.

It all comes back down to what is heat. Heat is moving atoms. And in the same way that photons cause atoms to move (and heat up), moving atoms can emit photons. When you look at the emitted wavelength it is governed by Planks Law. Hence absorbed higher wavelengths are re-emitted as lower wavelengths, generally in the infared region. This is why temperature can be measured by infared emission (contact-less thermometers)
But the actual question is how this impacts the transmission of energy through the atmosphere.

Every gas has a particular Absorption Spectra, meaning it will absorb certain frequencies of light (and convert them into heat). So what gasses have we got in the atmosphere. Nitrogen mainly, but the interesting one here is Carbon Dioxide.
Nitrogens absorption spectra drifts around the 2300 cm-1, or ~400 nanometers (source). This is somewhere in the high blues/violets. So the low-frequency reflected heat from earth will pass through nitrogen.
Carbon Dioxide has peaks at 1915cm-1 and 1935cm-1 (same source). This time it’s peaks go all the way down to … infared. So the carbon dioxide will absorb the reflected light, and heat itself up. Some of this will re-emit back to space, but the rest will re-emit back to earth in a loop.

And thus you see where Global Warming in a relation to CO2 levels comes from.

Anyone got any other ideas I can throw physics at?

[sdfgeoff]

This will be my final post in this thread unless someone asks for me to clarify or extend on something.

I can see what people are going to point out next. That I talked about CO2 absorbing IR light and re-emitting it down. Then why doesn’t the Earth heat up indefinitely?
It’s an equilibrium

Several thousand years ago, Earth was at equilibrium. The energy the sun put into Earth was identical to the energy Earth radiated. This equilibrium is governed by hundreds of things. But over the last 100 years, we’ve injected CO2 into the atmosphere, and altered that equilibrium. More heat was being emitted from the sun and entering Earth than Earth is radiating back into space. And thus it heats up.
The problem is that CO2 isn’t the only influence in the equilibrium. It’s the one we know about as we can study it’s effect over the past couple of decades. But there are other ones such as the effectiveness of the entire Earth. Earth has an aldebo of 0.38. A lot of this comes from ice. As Ice melts, the aldebo decreases and more energy is absorbed by Earth. This results in a feedback loop resulting in more ice melting. Why hasn’t all the ice already melted? Because the product of ice melting is water which still has a high-ish aldebo, and also has a very high heat retention ability. It provides a slight area of stability.

My final point is that of modeling. Some of you will see this as me admitting defeat. It is not. It is me telling you how, if I chose to continue in this thread, I could counter every single argument you could raise against global warming.
A physics model is based on simplifications. A complex system can be modeled at any level of complexity. My climate model started off simple, just the change in heat = heat in - heat out energy conservation that is one of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. I expanded it a little talking about the factors that contributed to this in the case of global warming. Then I expanded it some more, bringing in blackbody radiation and absorption spectra. I can keep going adding more and more complexity, but with each added layer of complexity the net change on the model becomes less and less. Yes, it get’s more accurate, and it will asymptote to the actual situation. But at some level of complexity, words start being less effective at conveying the model, and it will turn into a set of differential equations. I do not want to derive these equations here.

These posts are the result of 3 first year papers at a university: two physics papers and a modeling paper. I wish everyone in the world could take these papers as I use them again and again for modeling situations and predicting outcomes. They are amongst the most boring papers I’ve taken, but they win as for the most useful.

Sorry for derailing your thread AceDragon. I do think Solar paneled roads would be a good idea, if it could be done effectively.

[kbot]

There is plenty of energy from the sky that can be used…

Attachments

[Morio]

@sdfgeoff

Really? Actually, it can. The basics of this model is the black body radiation method.

What I meant is that the wavelengths of the emitted radiation is different from the reflected radiation, which means that they must be treated separately.

I am not saying that the model you describe is wrong, but rather that it is incomplete (as you said in a post it would get complicated to include everything). I am also not saying that your conclusion that more carbon dioxide leads to more global warming. My only concern really is the lack of any numbers whatsoever. You are not saying anything about the magnitude of the effect that CO2 has on global warming.

What I’m saying is that you can’t really make a good scientific case out of a thing like this without including at least some numbers.

[Ace_Dragon]

When I was a kid in school, the greenhouse effect illustrations the textbooks had suggested the heat being trapped under this ‘wall’ of CO2 high in the atmosphere, but the point is that you’re bound to run into some flaws if you treat the atmospheric greenhouse effect as one that works the same way as in a garden greenhouse (which the presence of glass prevents an important component known as convection). This is also a reason why those little experiments that try to prove it are misguided at best because they couldn’t be an accurate simulation of the atmosphere.

There’s also been studies that hypothesized a saturation point of the CO2 heat trapping effect (ie. a maximum), and some believe we’re getting close to it.

By all means I’m all for being a good steward of the planet and taking care of nature (our faith commands that), who doesn’t want to have unspoiled ecosystems to explore and enjoy, but the whole ‘save the planet’ business takes it to the extreme and shrouds what real environmentalism is all about.

[sdfgeoff]

I did not use numbers because finding numbers using the web is easy. There are already plenty of rundowns of DE’s on the web, but there are few human-readable descriptions of where these equations come from.
The two types of emission of energy from the Earth (reflection and re-emission) dealt with here can indeed be dealt with separately. But in this model they were clumped together under the heading ‘Energy reflected from ground’ No mention there is made of how it’s reflected. Light reflection is through shiny surfaces, heat reflection is through re-emission.

The greenhouse effect does not mean that somehow CO2 stops convection between the atmosphere and ‘somewhere else.’ It is a reference to the way that CO2 traps heat underneath it because of the absorbtion and reemission. This is similar to the way that a greenhouse traps heat because the glass is reflective. To my knowledge there are no experiments to ‘prove’ global warming by using small physical models. Physical models may be used to illustrate how the effect works to people who do not yet have the scientific knowledge to understand the derivation of the equations in a more accurate manner.

Care to link me to some of these studies? I’d be interested to read them. None of the maths I’ve looked at, read about or derived has a temperature/CO2 maximum. At least not for at least a couple thousand years.

[Ace_Dragon]

You’re still comparing the idea of a gas trapping heat in a similar way that a solid does (CO2 is gas, glass is solid). Glass blocks convection, heat in the atmosphere gets convected to the top where it is released into space.

There are some who think that CO2 can trap tons of heat because they give the extremely high CO2 content of Venus as a reference, Venus gets twice the radiation from the Sun and its atmosphere exerts enough pressure to crush you (noting that pressure also plays a role in how much heat can build up). Other people say it correlates with observed data (only the CO2 level is rising faster than ever now and the temperature increase goes on pause instead of accelerating, which is exactly one of the scenarios that was supposed to happen under models that were run in the late 80’s).

[sdfgeoff]

heat in the atmosphere gets convected to the top where it is released into space.

In the higher atmosphere, temperature is colder. The air outside aircraft is about -50 degrees celcius. Ever wonder how heat can convect into space when it’s so cold up there?
As I said earlier, heat is the vibration of atoms. Heat is transfered by atoms bumping into each other and conveying that vibration. In space it is a vacuum. Thus no heat leaches out into space via vibrating atoms. It only escapes into space via black-body emission.
Think of a vacuum thermos flask. How does it work? Heat cannot get through the layer of vacuum (except by the black-body radiation). If you like, Earth is in a vacuum flash of space, and it’s heat is kept in.

There are some who think that CO2 can trap tons of heat because they give the extremely high CO2 content of Venus as a reference, Venus gets twice the radiation from the Sun and its atmosphere exerts enough pressure to crush you (noting that pressure also plays a role in how much heat can build up). Other people say it correlates with observed data (only the CO2 level is rising faster than ever now and the temperature increase goes on pause instead of accelerating, which is exactly one of the scenarios that was supposed to happen under models that were run in the late 80’s).

That ‘some’ obviously includes me!!!
Alright, so let’s ignore Venus. I used it as an example to show how CO2 influences temperature (post #21). Upon Query by Morio, I then expanded exactly how CO2 influences heat. See post #23. Thus the reference to Venus is now redundant having been superseded by a more full description of the process.

I would like a link to said models. I have not come across any.
I would also like a link to CO2 and temperature data that shows the CO2 rising whilst the temperature is constant.

[Ace_Dragon]

@sdfgeoff

I would also like a link to CO2 and temperature data that shows the CO2 rising whilst the temperature is constant.

Okay, we can first look at these CO2 level measurements and how it’s still in acceleration.

Now we can look at measured temperatures (and no, I don’t mean NASA GISS which uses surface stations on asphalt and near AC units and uses a massive 1200 km smoothing to ‘assume’ temperatures where there’s no stations).

If the climate was as simple as CO2 = temperature (why even bother to do further research then), when we should be having apocalyptic climate conditions by now, but the actual increase in temperatures is not able to match the CO2 curve.

Furthermore, it has been determined that it was the extraordinary event in 1998 that led to the final uptick in temperatures (I’m talking about the work of independent skeptical scientists here) before the current plateau, and now we’re seeing what might be indication that temperatures will soon be starting their way back down.

[kbot]

Carbon dioxide in the air in 2014. Note that there is some trees and leaves here to absorb some of it.

Attachments

[sdfgeoff]

Yup, seen both those graphs before.

Have a look at the second one and notice things like ‘El Nino warming’ and ‘Mt Pinbato cooling’ This is because, like you say, other things influence air temperature. In these cases it was a tropical storm doing funny things and the eruption of a volcano. Temperature is influenced a lot by other conditions, some of which can be modeled (ie CO2 and aldebo), and some of which cannot (ie volcano’s and weather).

As such, we need a much larger dataset to work with, as the longer the period, the more clear the interaction. Take the raw data of the temperature a little further back, and you get:

And a similar graph from Nasa to show this isn’t a one-off:

And if it is dumped with the CO2 data:

Sources are IPCC, NASA and NCDC. They are people who I trust know what they are talking about.

So this is 200 years where there is a pretty good correlation.
So let’s take it back further and see what happens:

(Made from data from Ice core drilling from several scientific papers, again, people I trust to know what they’re doing)
So the images from 1880 only cover that last steep up rising (not from 10,000 years, the tiny blip of red at the very end). This graph is pretty conclusive in proving that CO2 is linked to temperature. They follow each other pretty closely. Sometimes the CO2 follows temperature, sometimes temperature follows CO2. This is a result of various feedback loops such as ice melting and reducing aldebo, or releasing Methane/trapped gasses.

Now you’re going to say that the earth has obviously undergone several hundred or thousand (or million) of these fluctuations in the past. So what’s different about this one? What created the CO2 increases in the past? Natural volcanic activity is a likely one. The scary one is the arrow pointing at ‘current CO2 levels.’ Care to name any non-human events that may have caused the CO2 to double from the average over the past 800,000 years?
And seeing as on this graph, a CO2 rise will cause a temperature rise, care to extrapolate what will happen?

Bear in mind those feedback loops I mentioned earlier. The ones I mentioned are negative feedback loops (so the higher the temperature rises, the higher they will drive the temperature). Obviously there is some other feedback look providing stability withing the 100ppm, 10 degree range we see there. We are well outside of that, and the question is:

• Will those feedback loops bring it back down?
• Or will they break? Every feedback look will break at some point.

Also consider the 50-100 thousand years it takes for the temperature to drop 5 degrees. Consider the graphs since 1880, and the 0.6 degree increase we see there. I don’t think the 1880 data is quite big enough for us to say that it will take 500-1000 years for the temperature to drop back, but it’ll sure take at least a couple decades.

So in my mind it comes down to ‘do you trust the data’ and that leads to many possible theories, like, for instance, the bribing mentioned earlier. And I’ve come up with a better argument that previously (about the money). Whoever is in charge of releasing said data (ie a bribing/government organization) obviously wants it to have some positive impact on them. Otherwise they wouldn’t bother, right? So if CO2 has no impact (or a positive impact) on the environment, then what possible advantage would it have to any organization? None at all.

I sure hope those hidden tree genes kick in soon. On a side note, I find that site rather untrustworthy as they cite few sources. Seems like a modern version of http://www.dhmo.org/

On a completely side note:

• Would you prefer to assume that CO2 does nothing, and wait and see what happens. Or
• Assume CO2 does have a negative impact, and try prevent that impact.

If Engineers took the first approach, many more buildings would fall down in Earthquakes, or bridges would degrade in sunlight, computers would overheat way more easily and best before dates on milk could be weeks out. Sometimes one has to take precautions even when one doesn’t know all the facts.

[Ace_Dragon]

You forget one thing though, and that is the many adjustments that have been done to the data along the way that almost always results in the past looking cooler and the present looking warmer.

Older temperature datasets from the 90’s for instance displayed a period in the 1930’s that was warmer than it is today, which would shake up the whole notion that climate is as simple as CO2 = temperature. Another thing is that the IPCC data assumes that we shouldn’t be trusting the accounts of people made over hundreds of years about stifling hot temperatures, retreating arctic ice, active fire activity ect… (for example, there’s been accounts from Russia regarding heatwaves in Moscow going back nearly 1000 years).

I will also note that some of the same scientists were warning about an impending ice age back in the 70’s, with the way to combat it being very similar to what it seen today. The final thing to note is that CO2 levels back during the industrial revolution were only about 100 PPM above where photosynthesis would stop altogether, so one could argue that they were at dangerously low levels back then and another large drop could’ve ended much of the life on Earth.

[sdfgeoff]

many adjustments that have been done to the data along the way

Older temperature datasets

Were humans born knowing the theory of relativity? Nope. We had to wait for the Greek philosophers, and then Newton to discover gravity and his three laws, we had to wait for Einstein to come along.
The thing about science is that it develops. The Greeks thought everything revolved around the Earth and were confused about the planets moving strange courses. Newton knew it was due to his gravitational law, but several centuries later it was discovered that the measurements didn’t fit the theory, and so it was revised.
It is in the nature of science for things to be improved. The same applies to climate science. We didn’t have the ice core data in the 90’s (the samples in that graph were only in the 1970’s), and as more data is collected, theories are updated and the models get more accurate.

So try to rely on newer data rather than older data. Unless you consider the newer data somewhat biased? In which case consider:
Whatever agency with a secret agenda is organizing this ‘climate change’ must believe it will have some positive impact on them.
What positive impact on said agency will having people believe the climate is changing have? None
So would an agency release said false data? No

IPCC data assumes that we shouldn’t be trusting the accounts of people made over hundreds of years

And correctly so. Do we trust all the Roman battle reports as fact? Nope. Because they run into Dragons and mythical beings and thus cannot be held as scientifically accurate. There is also evidence that some of these reports are just propaganda. So instead we rely on data we collect such as artifacts on a battlefield and checking it with said reports so we know which are likely to be accurate.

So how should we look at these reports from Moscow 1000 years ago? Can we treat them as false? Nope. Can we treat them as True? Nope. So what do we do. We can’t rely on their validity, (because reports like that have very little scientific notation and accuracy, generally being from things like newspapers), and we can’t discard them as merely False because there is no evidence pointing that way.
So we chose to ignore them because we have other, more reliable data from that period. Should someone discover some way of telling the temperature in Moscow back then, and then compare that data to the reports, then they would become scientifically viable. Until they have supporting evidence, eyewitness reports are ignored by scientists, but read and treated as fact by historians.
Finally, accounts on temperature written by individuals simply citing words like ‘heatwave’ and ‘warm’ are subjective. Had they had a cold winter 3 years running previously, then a normal temperature year is warm. And back a thousand years ago, I don’t think they had thermometers to check.

So it all comes down to scientific method.

The final thing to note is that CO2 levels back during the industrial revolution were only about 100 PPM above where photosynthesis would stop altogether

Source please. I"m guessing it’s that tree site you pointed me at earlier?

Lines like this:

There are thousands of feet of fossil bearing rocks whose inhabitants thrived when atmospheric CO2 levels were ten times higher than today.

compared to the chart data above contradict each other. One must be correct and the other false. I’m going with the one that cites the sources and the method used to obtain the data.

[John_L1 (John_L)]

Thing is… the earth isn’t a “simple model”. Your math excludes other important factors such as sun spots, and ocean temperatures, carbon from natural sources like volcanos, etc. More imporantly, the earth’s climate is unstable as it is, so even if we all hold our breath and not emit one drop of carbon into the enviroment, the earth’s climate, on it’s own, will go from ice age to temperate. I do believe man’s activities do contribute to what happens in our climate, but I think it’s overblown for political reasons. I also believe we should take care of the enviroment, but the sky isn’t falling.

[John_L1 (John_L)]

@sdfjeff:
All your numbers only dip back into the 19th century… that’s um like 1.15 centuries back from here… what about the other 45 million centuries before that? Why not present all of that information so one can get a full picture? Presenting that data is like looking at the last frame of a film and then writing a review of it. The problem with global warming is the global part of it. You have to look at the entire picture before you can make a determination either way.

[kbot]

[quote=“Ace Dragon,post:34,topic:610199"”]

You forget one thing though, and that is the many adjustments that have been done to the data along the way that almost always results in the past looking cooler and the present looking warmer.

Older temperature datasets from the 90’s for instance displayed a period in the 1930’s that was warmer than it is today, which would shake up the whole notion that climate is as simple as CO2 = temperature. Another thing is that the IPCC data assumes that we shouldn’t be trusting the accounts of people made over hundreds of years about stifling hot temperatures, retreating arctic ice, active fire activity ect… (for example, there’s been accounts from Russia regarding heatwaves in Moscow going back nearly 1000 years).

I will also note that some of the same scientists were warning about an impending ice age back in the 70’s, with the way to combat it being very similar to what it seen today. The final thing to note is that CO2 levels back during the industrial revolution were only about 100 PPM above where photosynthesis would stop altogether, so one could argue that they were at dangerously low levels back then and another large drop could’ve ended much of the life on Earth.

[/quote]

This is temperature from 2014. It’s a nice day. Influenced by hundreds of years of retreating artic ice. And heatwaves from Russia going back some 1000 years.

Attachments

[Ace_Dragon]

@John_L

Thing is… the earth isn’t a “simple model”. Your math excludes other important factors such as sun spots, and ocean temperatures, carbon from natural sources like volcanos, etc.

Not to mention land use changes (urbanization, deforestation ect…).

And correctly so. Do we trust all the Roman battle reports as fact? Nope. Because they run into Dragons and mythical beings and thus cannot be held as scientifically accurate.

It is true that some (are) arguably way out there, but to make as part of a blanket statement that no account from people who aren’t living today are to be trusted is going a bit extreme on that.

Would you say the same things from the accounts of your own ancestors (great grandparents and the like), will people need scientific proof a hundred years from now that there was a man named Ton who created a program called Blender (because the only other information available is in books)? Will people need empirical evidence a few more centuries from that saying that someone by the name of sdfgeoff even existed? You decide to trust no one and instead trust in things like tree rings (which can be greatly affected by temperature, rainfall, and other factors not to mention the possible creation of more than one ring per year as well as so-called false rings), and ice core samples (which may also be greatly be affected by snowfall rates and compression along with temperatures).

These are things that need to be considered when constructing climate history, otherwise you have a situation where the belief in science is literally rewriting history and making it something that’s inaccurate (and yes, I am acknowledging the possibility of some being way out there while not discrediting everything else).

[sdfgeoff]

Thing is… the earth isn’t a “simple model”. Your math excludes other important factors such as sun spots, and ocean temperatures, carbon from natural sources like volcanos, etc. More imporantly, the earth’s climate is unstable as it is, so even if we all hold our breath and not emit one drop of carbon into the enviroment, the earth’s climate, on it’s own, will go from ice age to temperate.

The beauty of scientific modeling is that you can model it at any level of detail and still end up with a reasonably accurate result. Advanced models do take these into accounts, but they are longer than I can write here, and some involve probability math that would require me to do a little study first. So yup, it’s a ‘fault’ with my model, but not all models. I put ‘fault’ in quotations because of the following:
Whey you calculate the time it takes for an object to fall 20 meters:

• You don’t use the figure of 9.80665 m/s2 as a value for gravity because there’s no need for the accuracy
• You don’t use Newtons law of gravitational attraction and the mass of the earth because it’s harder and doesn’t add much.
• You don’t allow for the relativistic effects of the falling objects speed because it’s so hard and adds so little accuracy.

So in climate science, you can establish a rough model like I did here, or you can establish a more accurate one, but it’s way harder for a little more accuracy.

All your numbers only dip back into the 19th century… that’s um like 1.15 centuries back from here… what about the other 45 million centuries before that? Why not present all of that information so one can get a full picture? Presenting that data is like looking at the last frame of a film and then writing a review of it. The problem with global warming is the global part of it. You have to look at the entire picture before you can make a determination either way.

Did you see the graph going back 800,000 years? That’s a fair chunk, 0.18% of Earths life (if your figure of 45 million centuries is accurate)
The other 45 million centuries?
a) We have no data from then, nor any current scientific way of getting it. So we work with what we know. If such data becomes available, it will be Incorporated into models.
b) You don’t look back over your entire life to figure out why you ate cereal for breakfast rather than, say, toast.

I think it’s overblown for political reasons. I also believe we should take care of the enviroment, but the sky isn’t falling.

May well be, but what would be the reason for overblowing it? What political impact is it having other than wasting the money of thousands of organizations?
And yeah, the sky isn’t falling But the ice may be.

Not to mention land use changes (urbanization, deforestation ect…).

And will deforestation help or hinder global warming? And how about urbanization? I don’t think any of those could be constructive.

It is true that some (are) arguably way out there, but to make as part of a blanket statement that no account from people who aren’t living today are to be trusted is going a bit extreme on that.

Would you say the same things from the accounts of your own ancestors (great grandparents and the like), will people need scientific proof a hundred years from now that there was a man named Ton who created a program called Blender (because the only other information available is in books)? Will people need empirical evidence a few more centuries from that saying that someone by the name of sdfgeoff even existed? You decide to trust no one and instead trust in things like tree rings (which can be greatly affected by temperature, rainfall, and other factors not to mention the possible creation of more than one ring per year as well as so-called false rings), and ice core samples (which may also be greatly be affected by snowfall rates and compression along with temperatures).

These are things that need to be considered when constructing climate history, otherwise you have a situation where the belief in science is literally rewriting history and making it something that’s inaccurate (and yes, I am acknowledging the possibility of some being way out there while not discrediting everything else).

There is a difference between acknowledging as True and trying to infer scientific data. One can accept the travels of Alexander the Great as being True, but one cannot use his travels and saying that ‘it was warm these couple years’ to conclude that global warming is bunk. not that anywhere in Arrians Alexander did he ever mention temperature, but the same goes for whatever Russian text it’s based on. You can cross-reference events, and prove their validity, but are there actual figures? I’m still looking for a link to said Russian text (or preferably an English transcription of it. Even an article on it will do, but the primary source would be better)
History is great for recording events, but useless for recording science.

As for the evidence for sdfgeoff or Ton, the evidence is plentiful to suggest that they existed. Google my name and you’ll find heaps of results. Nothing scientifically credible aside from perhaps my email in a couple of uni-level reports. That’ll prove a guy called used the alias sdfgeoff and went to a university. About Ton? No idea, haven’t done any research. There probably is some credible data out there. The blender website for one, at least, as well as several thousand reports.
As I said, history will report these events, but as to his age, or his physical address? I don’t think there’s enough data to be credible.

trust in things like tree rings (which can be greatly affected by temperature, rainfall, and other factors not to mention the possible creation of more than one ring per year as well as so-called false rings), and ice core samples (which may also be greatly be affected by snowfall rates and compression along with temperatures).

Yup, I trust the tree-rings and icecores because the raw data is available, the method of collection is available, and the science exists to model all of those influences you’ve mentioned. In fact, that’s how they’re useful, because of the tree rings and ice cores are impacted by the temperature.
For instance, the wikipedia page on that 800,000 year graph gives:

• The script used to generate the graph
• The doi’s of the raw data

Also available are the methods used to obtain said data. Not directly from those pages, but the techniques are well documented, and I see no reason why proper procedure wouldn’t have been followed there, particularly as the four independent-location samples correlate so well.