|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 29, 2022 15:20:10 GMT
Yes I know exactly what I'm talking about. But you don't. It's obviously too complicated for you to understand. There are correlations between many things but it doesn't mean causation. Sometimes the correlation is completely by chance and is temporary. Sometimes the correlation is because the two factors are related to a "cofactor" - but no causal link. Sometimes, as in this case, each factor can be causative depending on the conditions. I've studied science for many years. And yes I am saying that there is no correlation between temperature and CO2 in the last 200 years. And if you go back even further you still won't find one. I suggest you broaden your "research" beyond googling stuff that echoes your own ignorance because you obviously have no knowledge of this subject. FFS Steppenwolf make up your bleeding mind. I said there was correlation but not causation and in your charmless style you objected. Now you repeat my correlation isn't causation point as if you thought it all up yourself. And then you deny the correlation Maybe you need a lie down in a darkened room before you look at this  Or even from skepticalscience this  Sure looks like correlation but then I know what the words means. Did you even READ what I wrote you numpty. It's pointless my carrying on with trying to educate you if you can't be bothered to read what I say or aren't intelligent enough to understand it. I've seen all these graphs but they a) don't reflect the real data - the data is manipulated and b) reflect a very short period of time - not long enough to establish anything. LIke I said read a bit more about it. Read about the Early Twentieth Century Warming (ETCW) for example. Then ask yourself how you can establish warming (of 1.1C) when the error in the data that you're using is potentially more than that - and is being filtered to fit the algorithms of the climate change models. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 29, 2022 15:30:16 GMT
The worst thing about arguing whether AGW exists or not is that it is wasting valuable time that we should be spending on debating what we can do to mitigate the effects.
...but that's what the fossil fuel industry wants so they can sell every last drop at ever increasing prices as it slowly runs out.
A cynic might say that's why they fund so many ''scientific'' studies to muddy the water and convince the more skeptic that something fishy is going on.
The argument, sometimes, is that scientists can be bought to say what ''alarmists'' want them to say but most people who argue that don't have the wit to realise that goes both ways and they are being played.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 29, 2022 15:44:55 GMT
The worst thing about arguing whether AGW exists or not is that it is wasting valuable time that we should be spending on debating what we can do to mitigate the effects. If you don't know the cause of the change you CANNOT debate what we should do to mitigate it. Scientists have always debated/disagreed about what's going on - that's why science advances. The reason why we're wasting so much time going down a blind alley is because no one is ALLOWED to debate this subject anymore. The politicians have decided that CO2 is the culprit and refuse to talk about the real problem - population growth and the concreting over the land area of the planet. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 29, 2022 15:51:46 GMT
So Steppenwolf which data sources do you suggest we use?
Please none of those funded by oil companies
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2022 17:03:46 GMT
Only seems that way to you. There's a proven correlation (which to be clear is NOT the same as proven causation) between rising CO2 levels and rising world temperature. You seem to wish to deny this based on a very short term variation and there are loads of reasons for short term variations (EG sun spot cycle) Well it may not be proven as there are still disputes as regards what data should be used and how the stats are 'adjusted'. The problem lies not so much with the science as the reporting of any thing out of the ordinary as evidence of climate change. We saw the Just stop oil people quoting 40C record UK temperatures and the Pakistan floods as definitive evidence that warming is occurring and that fossil fuels are the reason. Yet both were easily explained. The Pakistan floods were not out of the ordinary in terms of rainfall (although as high as some records going back well over 100 years) but high for the local area whilst other areas were reduced. A normal pattern in the Monsoon apparently. However Just Stop Oil as a group have been subject to the Climate Emergency/Climate Catastrophe rhetoric and are fully converted almost as a religious ideal. Some work has been carried out as regards a relationship between temperature rise and human population density and strangely, or not, temperatures are seen to be higher with increasing population density and very little increase is seen in areas with no, or little, population. The science is far from settled and it is the overegging of the climate emergency pudding that is worrying as well as the shutting down and denigration of those who disagree, or even question, the emergency narrative. That is most decidedly not science. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2022 17:15:22 GMT
Red, the question always ends upback at the same point. The experts in the field are telling us that mad made climate change is a thing and that the impact of doing nothing will be at best very significant at worst catastrophic for the world and our grandchildren. There is overwhelming consensus amongst the experts that this is the case. So we have a choice of listening to the experts incurring a relatively small impact on our living standards now to mitigate or avoid the damage later if the experts are correct or take a gamble that politicians (almost always right wing libertarians know better than scientists and ignore them. If we take the gamble those politicians are right, if they are we have a slightly better living standard now if they are wrong we fuck the planet for our grandkids at best, kill them at worst. No sane person would take that gamble on merit but some wish to to further political agenda. The experts in the field are not telling us that as many experts in the field disagree. The Heartland Institute has carried out a poll of climate scientists and the result was that 58% agreed that man made global warming is occurring and is a problem. That is most certainly not an 'overwhelming majority' and science is not a democratic entity it is a discipline and many holes have been picked in the data and results as presented to date. You are back on teh emotional outlook as well but do you want your grandchildren to have a life colder, bleaker and less travelled than that which you lived based on a possibility that what you did was bad for the planet and so bad that everyone has to stop doing it. Doing nothing may have risks but so also is doing something. You have to balance the pros and cons of each. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 29, 2022 17:15:47 GMT
Most of the increased severity of flooding in Pakistan can be put down to their deforestation rather than climate change. Forests are able to soak up much more water than farmland and are much better at reducing the run off of heavy rains.
Go hug a tree everybody, they are one of the better solutions to our climate problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2022 17:21:33 GMT
So Steppenwolf which data sources do you suggest we use? Please none of those funded by oil companies Just stop Oil have some pretty shady funding avenues and their links to Oil Companies are certainly not explicit but are possible through a rather tortured route of secretive companies. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2022 17:26:31 GMT
Most of the increased severity of flooding in Pakistan can be put down to their deforestation rather than climate change. Forests are able to soak up much more water than farmland and are much better at reducing the run off of heavy rains. Go hug a tree everybody, they are one of the better solutions to our climate problems. As well as local corruption, inefficiency and inaction. Local flood plain land was used by the poor through little choice and poor flood control measures were in place. As an aside Pakistan's population is doubling about every generation and people are using risky land more and more often as that is all that is available. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 29, 2022 17:29:55 GMT
So Steppenwolf which data sources do you suggest we use? Please none of those funded by oil companies Just stop Oil have some pretty shady funding avenues and their links to Oil Companies are certainly not explicit but are possible through a rather tortured route of secretive companies. Seems it flew right past you Sandy that no one here is using Just Stop Oil as a reference. Nice try Sandy at maligning valid points that have been made but all you've communicated is you are that desperate having no valid points to make. So can you help Steppenwolf by posting climate data of provenance that refutes that long term correlation of temperature with CO2 levels or not. I'm betting not. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2022 17:47:17 GMT
Just stop Oil have some pretty shady funding avenues and their links to Oil Companies are certainly not explicit but are possible through a rather tortured route of secretive companies. Seems it flew right past you Sandy that no one here is using Just Stop Oil as a reference. Nice try Sandy at maligning valid points that have been made but all you've communicated is you are that desperate having no valid points to make. So can you help Steppenwolf by posting climate data of provenance that refutes that long term correlation of temperature with CO2 levels or not. I'm betting not. The point is that JSO are those who are taken in by the climate emergency/catastrophe narrative and behave like it is over and above any one else's right to have a decision on it. They are right and you must follow their demands. wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/01/new-peer-reviewed-paper-absence-of-correlation-between-temperature-changes-and-co2/It is another scientific conclusion, peer reviewed as so often requested, but by no means alone. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 29, 2022 21:46:22 GMT
Please correct your post Sandy, you are attributing your words to me
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 29, 2022 21:53:16 GMT
As for your comment you seem to be pretending that anyone here or any serious player anywhere is using Just Stop Oil as a source of provenance for climate data, they are not. They are a distraction from the actual topic of this thread.
And as for your link it clearly says 'CO2 changes are closely related to temperature.' so why you are positioning it to deny the correlation of the two surprises me
The bulk of the article is about causation and correctly points out that H2O is a far more significant greenhouse gas. The MMGW theory as I understand it is that the CO2 creates a small temperature rise amplified by the increase of airborne H2O from the oceans.
It's both an unproven and unrefuted theory. It could be true, just shutting our eyes and ignoring it (and the substantial body of experts convinced my it) is like going into the Casino and betting the World on Black to potentially win little but potentially lose so so much. IE a very dumb bet.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2022 22:11:53 GMT
Please correct your post Sandy, you are attributing your words to me Apologies, sorted. Things seem to jump all over the place apparently unbidden. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2022 22:37:07 GMT
As for your comment you seem to be pretending that anyone here or any serious player anywhere is using Just Stop Oil as a source of provenance for climate data, they are not. They are a distraction from the actual topic of this thread. And as for your link it clearly says 'CO2 changes are closely related to temperature.' so why you are positioning it to deny the correlation of the two surprises me The bulk of the article is about causation and correctly points out that H2O is a far more significant greenhouse gas. The MMGW theory as I understand it is that the CO2 creates a small temperature rise amplified by the increase of airborne H2O from the oceans. It's both an unproven and unrefuted theory. It could be true, just shutting our eyes and ignoring it (and the substantial body of experts convinced my it) is like going into the Casino and betting the World on Black to potentially win little but potentially lose so so much. IE a very dumb bet. NO I am saying that JSO are the result of a narrative that presages disaster unless we take action. The part you quoted was from the introduction commenting on the current view. If you go to his conclusion he says, along with much else. "The main argument is the absence of immediate correlation between CO2 changes preceding temperature either for global or local changes." The point as ever is that CO2 in some studies is not a driver of climate change. Which is what you asked for. |
|
