My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[CraigD]

So, let's look at the historical record. Here is a chart I made up, it is just the Vostok data lined up nicely. Any red marks are things I put on there, everything else is just raw data from the ice core people.

…

Here's a summary of the graphical data.

 

Event Temp CO2

Current Times 0 370

Event A +2 255

Event B +3.5 275

Event C +1.5 265

Event D +3.5 300

Event E +2 275

Engineerdude, what’s the source of your data (actual URLs)? Including sources is not only a sound writing style, a hypography site rule, but in this case, I’d find the information useful, as I was unable to find co2 data older than 1950 – 21676 at the usual reference, ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/.

For there to be some feedback correlation between CO2 and temp, high or low levels of CO2 need to have at least a minimal positive correlation to temperature. And it is just random.

…

Anyways, what she ran was a correlation coefficient for this data. A value of +1 means a strong positive relationship between things, .5 means a weak positive relationship, and close to 0 means no relationship. -1 means a strong negative relationship, -.5 means a weak negative, and so on. Values range from -1 to +1.

 

The data came back as -.56. This indicates a weak negative relationship between temperature maximums and CO2 levels.

I confirm a simple population Pearson’s correlation coefficient of -0.5599 for the 6 pairs of numbers you provide.

 

However, when sampling data, one should not selectively choose number pairs to produce a desired correlation, because by doing this with most data, it’s possible to obtain almost any desired correlation coefficient. :Glasses:

 

If I take approximate values from where the red lines on your graphic actually touch the CO2 and temperature graph lines, I get the following number pairs:

0	260
2	255
3.5	275
1.5	265
3.5	300
2	275

The correlation of these numbers is about +0.70. Omitting the first pair, the correlation is about +0.71.

 

A better method is to take all available data pairs. Taking the data from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/domec_co2.txt and ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc3deuttemp2007.txt (Valérie Masson-Delmotte) (because the EDC3 age data from these sources don’t match, I interpolated the edc3deuttemp2007.txt data to match the integer year domec_co2.txt data with a simple line between closest matching age values), 72 number pairs, the correlation is about +0.96. Here are the 72 number pairs I used:

-1.065329194234635629 265.2
-.158947635783188996 263.0
-.5584413224027791624 264.4
-.144524664284869823 264.0
-.8416443654221001913 265.7
-.496985346676197284 267.5
.4746534680222031251 266.0
.4745670073421107581 267.6
-.817765177536387446 264.8
-.463447173246880135 264.8
-1.028548646150191341 265.3
.1915139892973107513 264.1
-1.647357693440441975 264.5
-.2102375940191850343 264.0
-.5394785393440990403 265.2
.474377719043832156 260.8
.098242453082711239 253.9
-.659147633833421398 249.7
-.70390469941769868 250.7
-.6373157675347184134 245.3
-2.051994190681778976 246.6
-2.691622679553772985 243.2
-3.135701990225695258 237.5
-4.69795153795937176 237.6
-4.33133372203730082 234.2
-4.785070264410979056 238.3
-5.287328352490421456 237.3
-4.862575279937237002 237.9
-4.792878953265623306 237.6
-3.596346840881442585 236.4
-4.482904930621442125 239.2
-4.916765333399600269 238.6
-4.838520379397218039 238.6
-4.701998174785971926 239.1
-3.813157136068430223 228.5
-1.022168530590275701 228.4
-4.986438119494193789 226.1
-4.016842794710083571 225.2
-4.536447543002152239 224.5
-4.066314442303059504 222.0
-4.241225348215755428 221.0
-4.942601049575703439 220.9
-5.648515040008219987 219.4
-5.551840764888777935 214.0
-5.273132585650637579 207.5
-5.673570850003681795 207.7
-6.867180858258674825 202.9
-7.32609938460921683 200.8
-6.847082059950032155 195.2
-8.273133418029521646 193.9
-7.763623115349911029 191.0
-7.741095955610985263 188.5
-8.971481861037097766 188.5
-9.52052954906048805 189.2
-9.80006894274300932 187.0
-9.40035853343072933 188.6
-9.072123719482342943 189.4
-8.81662161251936505 192.3
-9.72167161336401873 188.3
-10.22681115367594799 188.7
-9.4928563989063924 188.8
-9.23920143754708009 190.0
-10.09424499044343287 188.0
-8.650727869059257624 188.2
-9.29092465861427355 195.0
-9.166331761364632457 187.8
-10.07557609943346622 186.9
-9.64762431363753416 186.5
-9.42505630124173112 184.7
-9.088613015686055359 186.1
-9.2298818795162803 185.7
-9.56708826629612066 184.4

So, what do you folks say about this? How can CO2 be some sort of feedback mechanism if the record shows otherwise?

As I note above, because you chose your small number of data points improperly, the negative correlation you found is not statistically valid. If selected in a statistically valid way, a strong positive correlation appears.

 

It’s important to note that correlation does not imply causation. A strong positive simple correlation coefficient does not show that increased CO2 concentration causes or is caused by increased temperature. However the claim that there is actually a strong negative correlation between these data is incorrect.

[Essay]

IPCC people show equations proving it, others show equations that show the opposite.

Who are these "others" of which you speak?

...it better not be that silly "extinction" argument, based on a complete misunderstanding of some spectroscopy terminology. :Glasses:

===

 

Since nobody else...

...and with all due respect to the statistician....

 

You should have your wife review your post and point out that 5 data points, from a graph like that, doesn't give you a very accurate answer. Also, your use of the word "negative," in this case meaning "poor," is misleading you to say that CO2 has the opposite effect on temperature.

 

Obviously from your 5 data points, the two lowest temps are associated with the two lowest CO2 concentrations; and the two highest temps are ...with the two highest CO2 concentrations.

 

That's not a negative correlation; but given those 5 points, it is a poor, or weak, correlation.

 

What's the name of that test where you get a range from -1 to +1?

I'm used to correlation coefficients running from 0 to 1....

===

 

C'mon, look at those two graphs.... That's gotta be over a 90% correlation, especially if you discount the current human-induced CO2 spike.

 

With the resolution of these two graphs, you'd have to wait a thousand years (or more like 10,000) to see the effect of this current CO2 spike.

 

The CO2 graph does serve to show how wacked the current CO2 reading is when compared to the past half million years.

===

 

*UPDATE

WHoops, I see there are 6 data points. I didn't notice the current "0, 370" set.

Well yes, that'll throw off the correlation a lot more.

...so yes it would be weakly negative.

...i see; that was a test to show either a direct or inverse relationship, hence the negative numbers.

...what's it called?

Interestingly, the correlation is high (and not inverse) until people come on the scene; then the temps stop following the CO2 curve.

 

This is more a statement of how strong an influence people have had on the climate, through their dramatic and large scale land-use and land-cover changes, for thousands of years now.

===

 

re: Assumption #1: Learn about the Milankovitch Cycle (mentioned already....); and about the position of the contintents at various times in our climatic history; and about the emergence of grasses in that climate history....

 

re: Assumption #2: Well it's true that CO2 doesn't account for all of the earth's temperature swings, there's also plenty of evidence to show that CO2 also affects temperature.

Nobody is trying to say that CO2 is the only forcer in our climate's history, but it is one of the forcers.

Just because the earth warms and cools "regardless" of CO2, doesn't mean CO2 doesn't also have some mean effects. :)

 

#3 has two parts:

"Lots of CO2 make the planet warmer than it would otherwise be, low levels make things cooler." -Edude

This is a good assumption, or even a hypothesis that could be tested or examined in the record.

I especially like the qualification of "...than it would otherwise be...."

This really is the key point to understand; ...and then wonder what happens if CO2 is artificially raised, off-cycle.

 

#3, part II:

...you will "TRY TO DISPROVE CO2 acts as a feedback mechanism." -Edude

 

...I was gonna say something about the difference between "feedback" mechanisms and operating directly as a GHG, but it's too late to say any more now.

 

Maybe mananna.

 

~ :doh:

[Flying Binghi]

Just because the earth warms and cools "regardless" of CO2, doesn't meant CO2 doesn't also have some effects.

 

Ah - Ha ....proof of intoxication me-thinks :Glasses:

 

This is what happens when the yooth of today inbib...inbibe...what-ever, them carbonated (CO2 infused) alco soft drinks - We end up with babal.

 

"Just because the earth warms and cools "regardless" of CO2, doesn't meant CO2 doesn't also have some effects"

 

......come in spinner (spoken in a sarcastic Oz accent) :doh:

[engineerdude]

Engineerdude, what’s the source of your data (actual URLs)? Including sources is not only a sound writing style, a hypography site rule, but in this case, I’d find the information useful, as I was unable to find co2 data older than 1950 – 21676 at the usual reference, ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/. I confirm a simple population Pearson’s correlation coefficient of -0.5599 for the 6 pairs of numbers you provide.

 

However, when sampling data, one should not selectively choose number pairs to produce a desired correlation, because by doing this with most data, it’s possible to obtain almost any desired correlation coefficient. :Glasses:

 

If I take approximate values from where the red lines on your graphic actually touch the CO2 and temperature graph lines, I get the following number pairs:

0	260
2	255
3.5	275
1.5	265
3.5	300
2	275

The correlation of these numbers is about +0.70. Omitting the first pair, the correlation is about +0.71.

 

A better method is to take all available data pairs. Taking the data from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/domec_co2.txt and ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc3deuttemp2007.txt (Valérie Masson-Delmotte) (because the EDC3 age data from these sources don’t match, I interpolated the edc3deuttemp2007.txt data to match the integer year domec_co2.txt data with a simple line between closest matching age values), 72 number pairs, the correlation is about +0.96. Here are the 72 number pairs I used:

-1.065329194234635629 265.2
-.158947635783188996 263.0
-.5584413224027791624 264.4
-.144524664284869823 264.0
-.8416443654221001913 265.7
-.496985346676197284 267.5
.4746534680222031251 266.0
.4745670073421107581 267.6
-.817765177536387446 264.8
-.463447173246880135 264.8
-1.028548646150191341 265.3
.1915139892973107513 264.1
-1.647357693440441975 264.5
-.2102375940191850343 264.0
-.5394785393440990403 265.2
.474377719043832156 260.8
.098242453082711239 253.9
-.659147633833421398 249.7
-.70390469941769868 250.7
-.6373157675347184134 245.3
-2.051994190681778976 246.6
-2.691622679553772985 243.2
-3.135701990225695258 237.5
-4.69795153795937176 237.6
-4.33133372203730082 234.2
-4.785070264410979056 238.3
-5.287328352490421456 237.3
-4.862575279937237002 237.9
-4.792878953265623306 237.6
-3.596346840881442585 236.4
-4.482904930621442125 239.2
-4.916765333399600269 238.6
-4.838520379397218039 238.6
-4.701998174785971926 239.1
-3.813157136068430223 228.5
-1.022168530590275701 228.4
-4.986438119494193789 226.1
-4.016842794710083571 225.2
-4.536447543002152239 224.5
-4.066314442303059504 222.0
-4.241225348215755428 221.0
-4.942601049575703439 220.9
-5.648515040008219987 219.4
-5.551840764888777935 214.0
-5.273132585650637579 207.5
-5.673570850003681795 207.7
-6.867180858258674825 202.9
-7.32609938460921683 200.8
-6.847082059950032155 195.2
-8.273133418029521646 193.9
-7.763623115349911029 191.0
-7.741095955610985263 188.5
-8.971481861037097766 188.5
-9.52052954906048805 189.2
-9.80006894274300932 187.0
-9.40035853343072933 188.6
-9.072123719482342943 189.4
-8.81662161251936505 192.3
-9.72167161336401873 188.3
-10.22681115367594799 188.7
-9.4928563989063924 188.8
-9.23920143754708009 190.0
-10.09424499044343287 188.0
-8.650727869059257624 188.2
-9.29092465861427355 195.0
-9.166331761364632457 187.8
-10.07557609943346622 186.9
-9.64762431363753416 186.5
-9.42505630124173112 184.7
-9.088613015686055359 186.1
-9.2298818795162803 185.7
-9.56708826629612066 184.4

As I note above, because you chose your small number of data points improperly, the negative correlation you found is not statistically valid. If selected in a statistically valid way, a strong positive correlation appears.

 

It’s important to note that correlation does not imply causation. A strong positive simple correlation coefficient does not show that increased CO2 concentration causes or is caused by increased temperature. However the claim that there is actually a strong negative correlation between these data is incorrect.

 

Very nice, very comprehensive.

 

I did not pick out random points in an effort to prove a point. I picked the temperature maximums.

 

I was not trying to show there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature - there is obviously a very strong correlation, everyone agrees on that. The lack of correlation is between extreme temperatures and some sort of value of CO2.

 

The question is, does CO2 make temperature hotter at high levels or colder at low levels? And as far as I can see the answer is unequivocally, no.

 

CraigD, when you ran your correlation, why did you omit the most recent data? What is actually happening right now is the best data we have - we know more precisely than ever very exact levels of CO2 and temperature.

 

And, the first data point, in current times at 0 degrees temp from present should have a CO2 level of 385, not 260 - that's what is happening right now.

 

So, CraigD, please check again and see if there is some correlation between temperature maximums and CO2 levels. And also please use current times as a data point as well. Perhaps you could expand this a bit and use temperature minimums as well, to have more data points, though the mins are "fuzzier" and much harder to pick out.

[engineerdude]

This at least started well. I strongly suggest you start with an undergraduate level textbook on this subject-- David Archer's perhaps. Instead of looking for ways to debunk AGW and "revise" arguments that can easily be invalidated, understanding the core basics is essential. You don't need to respond- that is my final comment on this matter.

 

Chris C, I of course very much respect your opinions and thoughts, as I do everyone's on this site.

 

Consider this: There have been volumes written in the religious community proving the divinity of Christ. However, with no empirical evidence to back anything up, and in the face of common sense, nothing can be definitively proven.

 

When many people believe in something that has no proof, that is called religion. Books written, equations made, models ran, does not change anything. If a theory defies common sense, and has no proof of any kind despite exhaustive efforts, that is not science.

[modest]

Engineerdude, what’s the source of your data (actual URLs)?

 

I did not pick out random points in an effort to prove a point. I picked the temperature maximums.

 

Engineerdude seems to have approximated the values by looking at his graph. The data can be found here:

 

NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Centers Vostok Ice Core Data

 

While a peak value of 275 ppm [ce]CO_2[/ce] was claimed in the vicinity of 125,000 years before present, the data in that region peaks at 287.1 ppm. All signs, then, point to the reported figures being rough approximations.

 

Nobody is trying to say that CO2 is the only forcer in our climate's history, but it is one of the forcers.

Just because the earth warms and cools "regardless" of CO2, doesn't meant CO2 doesn't also have some effects.

Ah - Ha ....proof of intoxication me-thinks :evil:

 

If tomorrow, humans stop introducing carbon into the atmosphere and levels subsequently drop while at the same time solar irradiance increases by leaps and bounds then you might say temperatures will rise "regardless" of the drop in [ce]CO_2[/ce] levels.

 

It would be wrong to conclude from such an scenario that [ce]CO_2[/ce] has no effect on temperature just as it is wrong to accuse a fellow member of being drunk for using a perfectly-understandable if not loosely-worded sentence.

 

We are here for a substantive discussion of the topic, not to hear your insults regarding people's grammar. If you can't do the former then you will be stopped from doing the latter.

 

~modest

[engineerdude]

Who are these "others" of which you speak?

...it better not be that silly "extinction" argument, based on a complete misunderstanding of some spectroscopy terminology. :Glasses:

===

 

Since nobody else...

...and with all due respect to the statistician....

 

 

===

 

C'mon, look at those two graphs.... That's gotta be over a 90% correlation, especially if you discount the current human-induced CO2 spike.

 

With the resolution of these two graphs, you'd have to wait a thousand years (or more like 10,000) to see the effect of this current CO2 spike.

 

The CO2 graph does serve to show how wacked the current CO2 reading is when compared to the past half million years.

===

 

*UPDATE

WHoops, I see there are 6 data points. I didn't notice the current "0, 370" set.

Well yes, that'll throw off the correlation a lot more.

...so yes it would be weakly negative.

...i see; that was a test to show either a direct or inverse relationship, hence the negative numbers.

...what's it called?

Interestingly, the correlation is high (and not inverse) until people come on the scene; then the temps stop following the CO2 curve.

 

This is more a statement of how strong an influence people have had on the climate, through their dramatic and large scale land-use and land-cover changes, for thousands of years now.

===

 

re: Assumption #1: Learn about the Milankovitch Cycle (mentioned already....); and about the position of the contintents at various times in our climatic history; and about the emergence of grasses in that climate history....

 

re: Assumption #2: Well it's true that CO2 doesn't account for all of the earth's temperature swings, there's also plenty of evidence to show that CO2 also affects temperature.

Nobody is trying to say that CO2 is the only forcer in our climate's history, but it is one of the forcers.

Just because the earth warms and cools "regardless" of CO2, doesn't meant CO2 doesn't also have some effects.

 

#3 has two parts:

"Lots of CO2 make the planet warmer than it would otherwise be, low levels make things cooler." -Edude

This is a good assumption, or even a hypothesis that could be tested or examined in the record.

I especially like the qualification of "...than it would otherwise be...."

This really is the key point to understand; ...and then wonder what happens if CO2 is artificially raised, off-cycle.

 

#3, part II:

...you will "TRY TO DISPROVE CO2 acts as a feedback mechanism." -Edude

 

...I was gonna say something about the difference between "feedback" mechanisms and operating directly as a GHG, but it's too late to say any more now.

 

Maybe mananna.

 

~ :doh:

 

Heya Essay,

 

OK here's replies to your points:

 

"Who are these "others" of which you speak?"

Here's one. http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

Unfortunately, governments aren't funding the Anti-AGW movement, so there aren't hundreds of scientists on the dole creating volumes of stuff in support of their grant money.

 

"C'mon, look at those two graphs.... That's gotta be over a 90% correlation, especially if you discount the current human-induced CO2 spike."

What, you haven't memorized the 97 pages of this thread? Hehe, I am not trying to show a lack of correlation between CO2 and and temp, I'm trying to show a lack of correlation between extremes and CO2. Everyone agrees that CO2 follows temperature closely. The question is, does CO2 act as some sort of feedback mechanism to have an effect on things?

 

"With the resolution of these two graphs, you'd have to wait a thousand years (or more like 10,000) to see the effect of this current CO2 spike."

The historical record shows that Co2 follows temperature pretty fast. Co2 adjusts to changes in temperature in the span of centuries. Here's a link to this:

Paleo Pubs - Icecores, Antarctica, Vostok CO2

 

"The CO2 graph does serve to show how wacked the current CO2 reading is when compared to the past half million years."

Yeah current Co2 sure is historically high. Makes you wonder why, with CO2 levels so incredibly high it is actually not that hot on earth, historically speaking.

 

"...i see; that was a test to show either a direct or inverse relationship, hence the negative numbers.

...what's it called?"

It's called the Correlation Coefficient.

 

"This is more a statement of how strong an influence people have had on the climate, through their dramatic and large scale land-use and land-cover changes, for thousands of years now."

Boy, I don't see this from the data. I see that people are belching out huge quantities of CO2 and it doesn't seem to be having any effect at all on climate.

 

re: Assumption #1: Learn about the Milankovitch Cycle (mentioned already....); and about the position of the contintents at various times in our climatic history; and about the emergence of grasses in that climate history....

The Milankovitch Cycle focuses mostly on eccentricities in the Earth's orbit and planetary tilt to explain climate change. It sounds pretty good to me. This theory only mentions CO2 as a possible moderator to some predicted changes that should have occurred. The theory in no way says CO2 is a contributor to climate change. Here's a pretty good link to an explanation of this theory.

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

"Just because the earth warms and cools "regardless" of CO2, doesn't meant CO2 doesn't also have some effects."

Logically, CO2 probably does have some effect on climate. Is it significant though? The historical record indicates not, see my main recent post on this.

 

"This really is the key point to understand; ...and then wonder what happens if CO2 is artificially raised, off-cycle."

No need to wonder - we did this experiment. Current CO2 is 375, 40% above the last half-million year highs. Net effect, nothing.

 

If I missed responding to any of your comments please tell me. I look forward to what you have to say :)

[engineerdude]

Engineerdude seems to have approximated the values by looking at his graph. The data can be found here:

 

NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Centers Vostok Ice Core Data

 

While a peak value of 275 ppm [ce]CO_2[/ce] was claimed in the vicinity of 125,000 years before present, the data in that region peaks at 287.1 ppm. All signs, then, point to the reported figures being rough approximations.

 

 

 

If tomorrow, humans stop introducing carbon into the atmosphere and levels subsequently drop while at the same time solar irradiance increases by leaps and bounds then you might say temperatures will rise "regardless" of the drop in [ce]CO_2[/ce] levels.

 

It would be wrong to conclude from such an scenario that [ce]CO_2[/ce] has no effect on temperature just as it is wrong to accuse a fellow member of being drunk for using a perfectly-understandable if not loosely-worded sentence.

 

We are here for a substantive discussion of the topic, not to hear your insults regarding people's grammar. If you can't do the former then you will be stopped from doing the latter.

 

~modest

 

I concede that CO2 does of course play some role in how warm the planet is.

Some people think the role is large, others think the role is immeasurably small.

 

"If tomorrow, humans stop introducing carbon into the atmosphere and levels subsequently drop while at the same time solar irradiance increases by leaps and bounds then you might say temperatures will rise "regardless" of the drop in [ce]CO_2[/ce] levels. "

 

When I say that the planet decides to warm up all on its own, I am basing that comment on this:

 

Paleo Pubs - Icecores, Antarctica, Vostok CO2

 

This data has been shown graphically many times as well. Due to the close relationship between temperature and gases like Methane and CO2, during near steady-state times it's impossible to tell from the ice core data what is affecting what. If you look at times when the overall temperature trend changes - say, when the planet switches from cooling to heating up - temperature always changes first, then a few hundred years later CO2 also switches direction. If the earth was cooling, CO2 actually continues to decrease for a while even as the earth dramatically warms up.

 

AGW-proponents concede this. The main hypothesis AGW people put forth is that CO2 acts as a feedback mechanism to make extremes more severe, or makes change happen faster.

 

I'd love to look at the change side, but it will take a while. The easiest thing is to pick out clearly identifiable points in the historical data and see what's up. Which is what I tried to do.

 

 

As for your other comments:

 

"While a peak value of 275 ppm [ce]CO_2[/ce] was claimed in the vicinity of 125,000 years before present, the data in that region peaks at 287.1 ppm. All signs, then, point to the reported figures being rough approximations."

 

OK, yeah I was being lazy, I did approximate from the chart. But I approximated honestly.

 

 

"it is wrong to accuse a fellow member of being drunk for using a perfectly-understandable if not loosely-worded sentence."

These typos were a result of my poor typing skills, not my state of drunkenness. No offense taken of course, it was sloppy on my part, too much reliance on the spell checker :).

[modest]

OK, yeah I was being lazy, I did approximate from the chart. But I approximated honestly.

 

I don't doubt your honesty.

 

"it is wrong to accuse a fellow member of being drunk for using a perfectly-understandable if not loosely-worded sentence."

These typos were a result of my poor typing skills, not my state of drunkenness. No offense taken of course, it was sloppy on my part, too much reliance on the spell checker :Glasses:.

 

I'm sorry, you misunderstand. Flying Binghi was accusing Essay of being drunk which I didn't think was all-too appropriate. It was nothing to do with you. I should have split-up my post as to make that more apparent.

 

~modest

[Chris C]

I hope my web page on the Oregon Petition does justice to the quality of those "others"

One more Petition, still a consensus Climate Change

 

Of course the non-specialists aren't getting funding for climate research. Neither is anyone in this forum (I suspect). :-/

 

The GHG feedback effect is probably 30% or so of the total glacial-interglacial variation. Over geologic timescales CO2 is generally regarded as the most important variable effecting changes in global temperature. If you want to compare "peaks" why not the PETM? This particular analysis of the ice core data is flawed on multiple levels, and I cannot imagine why it is still being entertained after multiple attempts at correction.

[engineerdude]

I hope my web page on the Oregon Petition does justice to the quality of those "others"

One more Petition, still a consensus Climate Change

 

Of course the non-specialists aren't getting funding for climate research. Neither is anyone in this forum (I suspect). :-/

 

The GHG feedback effect is probably 30% or so of the total glacial-interglacial variation. Over geologic timescales CO2 is generally regarded as the most important variable effecting changes in global temperature. If you want to compare "peaks" why not the PETM? This particular analysis of the ice core data is flawed on multiple levels, and I cannot imagine why it is still being entertained after multiple attempts at correction.

 

I offered the link to the Oregon thing to answer a direct question, asking who else offered a dissenting version of the math. I do actually 99% agree with the Oregon link, and I have found no one who disproves any of it point-by-point. Some people try character assassination in an attempt to discredit the signers of the petition, as in the link you provided. Apparently you need to have a PHD to have common sense, or to have valid scientific opinions about common things. Though people like Edison, Tesla, and Einstein might disagree with that.

 

Regarding PETM, do you have a link to the data?

 

Regarding inaccuracies in the ice core samples, where are these problems documented, and what does anyone have that is better? Specifically, where is there any historic evidence to back up the claims that CO2 has a darn thing to do with how warm the planet is?

 

"Over geologic timescales CO2 is generally regarded as the most important variable effecting changes in global temperature."

Show me the data please.

[REASON]

Regarding inaccuracies in the ice core samples, where are these problems documented, and what does anyone have that is better? Specifically, where is there any historic evidence to back up the claims that CO2 has a darn thing to do with how warm the planet is?

 

 

Do you deny that Carbon Dioxide is a Greenhouse Gas?

 

If you agree that it is a greenhouse gas, wouldn't it be common sense to understand that the more of it there is as a percentage of our atmosphere, the greater the greenhouse effect and the more likelyhood there is of retaining radiant heat energy?

 

We need to stay away from comments like "when the Earth decides to warm up, or cool down." Again, if you don't believe it's CO2, then what is it causing the sharp increase in mean temperature in this, or any other time period?

[goku]

For an example, spend an evening in south Florida, where with all the humidity there is probably 20000 ppm of water vapor in the air. The sun sets, and the temperature drops very little, just a few degrees. Then go out in the desert at sunset, where water vapor concentrations are 2000 ppm - the temperature drops from 100 degrees to 50 degrees in just a few minutes. CO2 levels are about the same for both places, but they behave vastly different, and are totally correlated to the amount of water vapor in the air.

 

i agree. that's the kind of evidence evolutionists hate. the kind that can't be dismissed, also known as truth.

 

i've even heard the weather men say, "the cloud cover will keep it from cooling down too much tonight"

[REASON]

i agree. that's the kind of evidence evolutionists hate. the kind that can't be dismissed, also known as truth.

 

Evolutionists? We're talking climatology here, goku. Get with the program.

 

There is not a single advocate of the idea that human activities are affecting the climate that denies that water vapor is the primary factor in the greenhouse effect. It isn't being dismissed by anyone, even evolutionists.

 

Are you here to tell us that what the top climate scientists in the world have missed all along is the humidity? Maybe you'd be willing, with all of your advanced down-home knowledge, to explain the way in which water vapor is causing a rapid and steady increase in the mean global temperature instead of just saying CO2 can't be a factor.

 

 

i've even heard the weather men say, "the cloud cover will keep it from cooling down too much tonight"

 

Here you are describing the greenhouse effect. Yes, the clouds can act like a blanket that retains surface heat. The point is, CO2, like water vapor (clouds) also can act like a blanket that retains heat. This is not at all a shocking statement I'm making here. It is a well known fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And, according to the link I provided above, is the second most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere responsible for 9 - 26 percent of the greenhouse effect.

 

Choosing to ignore the importance of CO2 in global warming is foolishness.

[engineerdude]

Do you deny that Carbon Dioxide is a Greenhouse Gas?

 

If you agree that it is a greenhouse gas, wouldn't it be common sense to understand that the more of it there is as a percentage of our atmosphere, the greater the greenhouse effect and the more likelyhood there is of retaining radiant heat energy?

 

We need to stay away from comments like "when the Earth decides to warm up, or cool down." Again, if you don't believe it's CO2, then what is it causing the sharp increase in mean temperature in this, or any other time period?

 

Everyone agrees that CO2 acts as a "Greenhouse Gas". The point I repeatedly try to make is that there is basically no CO2 in out atmosphere, as so its effects are minimal. Yes, it is the second most common "Greenhouse Gas" - but second by an immense amount.

 

People in favor of AGW argue that CO2 is a "Better Greenhouse gas" than water vapor, and so its effects are more important. The infrared absorption is different for CO2 and water - CO2 absorbs more far-infrared, water absorbs more near infrared. People on both sides of this argument point out why CO2 does or does not theoretically contribute to global warming, but there is much more to the way our climate works that simply looking at infrared absorption.

 

In the midst of these conflicting arguments, the only impartial evidence we can produce is the actual historic record of climate changes. Everyone agrees, based on the ice core samples, that CO2 follows temperature.

I think I have demonstrated in previous posts that high levels of CO2 do not equal high planetary temperatures. So, what exactly does CO2 do, based on impartial historical evidence? I can't see that it does anything substantial.

[engineerdude]

Evolutionists? We're talking climatology here, goku. Get with the program.

 

There is not a single advocate of the idea that human activities are affecting the climate that denies that water vapor is the primary factor in the greenhouse effect. It isn't being dismissed by anyone, even evolutionists.

 

Are you here to tell us that what the top climate scientists in the world have missed all along is the humidity? Maybe you'd be willing, with all of your advanced down-home knowledge, to explain the way in which water vapor is causing a rapid and steady increase in the mean global temperature instead of just saying CO2 can't be a factor.

 

 

 

 

Here you are describing the greenhouse effect. Yes, the clouds can act like a blanket that retains surface heat. The point is, CO2, like water vapor (clouds) also can act like a blanket that retains heat. This is not at all a shocking statement I'm making here. It is a well known fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And, according to the link I provided above, is the second most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere responsible for 9 - 26 percent of the greenhouse effect.

 

Choosing to ignore the importance of CO2 in global warming is foolishness.

 

"Here you are describing the greenhouse effect. Yes, the clouds can act like a blanket that retains surface heat. The point is, CO2, like water vapor (clouds) also can act like a blanket that retains heat."

 

Clouds are not part of the "Greenhouse Effect". Clouds are tiny droplets of condensed water, while water vapor is the invisible gaseous form of water that is naturally present in our lower atmosphere. Clouds are, in fact, a giant unknown regarding global climate - they both reflect solar radiation to space and act as a blanket to slow cooling of the planet. And, there is nothing in the planet's geologic record to show if it was sunnier or cloudier at different times.

[Galapagos]

I found a few interesting blog links for those interested:

ClimateScienceWatch

RealClimate

A Few Things Ill Considered

This list on "A Few Things Ill Considered" is super cool

A Few Things Ill Considered : How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic

 

Contains responses to claims about CO2 levels, clouds present in models, greenhouse gases, etc.