|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 29, 2022 23:05:46 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. Thanks and they do and not just this forum. Seems forums the world over use the same base software. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 29, 2022 23:14:42 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. I'll try ro take another look but it's not a simple read esp as you really need to read the full text here www.scirp.org/pdf/IJG20100300002_69193660.pdf Still looks to me like he's disputing causation rather than observed correlation and Figure 1 of that full document does show long term correlation of temperature with CO2 and he describes that Figure 1 as being from the best data set (Maunu Loa) His conclusions appear to be commenting on the lack of short term correlation CO2/temp but that's no surprise as the oceans are one huge smoothing store both of heat and CO2. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 30, 2022 7:30:59 GMT
So Steppenwolf which data sources do you suggest we use? Please none of those funded by oil companies Most of the research in this area is funded by bodies that have vested interests in areas that make them less than impartial. However I don't think there's much point in you reading anything until you learn a bit about science and its methodology. So read a basic book on science. You could look up the "Early 20th Century global warming" where, between about 1920 and 1950 there was a spike in temperatures (peaking in 1940) very similar to the current one - but without any changes in CO2. The bottom line is that the scientists don't know what's going on because the models don't work. And they don't work because many of the factors in climate change are not understood. Like the role of H2O can't be modelled because the phase changes that occur in water (vapour. liquid, ice) are too complex to model. CO2 is simpler because it remains in one phase in Earth's climate but it still can't be modelled because the cooling effect of CO2 is dependent on huge amounts of data and calculations to work out how much effect plant photosynthesis has. And there's also the natural effects that we don't understand like ocean currents. For example El Nino causes temperature rises of up to 2.5C on the surface of the ocean and causes significant release of CO2. ET cetera. The one thing I'd say is that it's obvious to anyone that urban areas are far warmer than rural areas (up to 5C), which is partly to do with lack of vegetation and partly due to houses and concrete retaining heat. And we know that weather stations in urban areas record higher temperatures - and as the planet is getting more and more built over. Yet the politicians never talk about this. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 30, 2022 9:36:16 GMT
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. I'll try ro take another look but it's not a simple read esp as you really need to read the full text here www.scirp.org/pdf/IJG20100300002_69193660.pdf Still looks to me like he's disputing causation rather than observed correlation and Figure 1 of that full document does show long term correlation of temperature with CO2 and he describes that Figure 1 as being from the best data set (Maunu Loa) His conclusions appear to be commenting on the lack of short term correlation CO2/temp but that's no surprise as the oceans are one huge smoothing store both of heat and CO2. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 30, 2022 9:44:18 GMT
I'll try ro take another look but it's not a simple read esp as you really need to read the full text here www.scirp.org/pdf/IJG20100300002_69193660.pdf Still looks to me like he's disputing causation rather than observed correlation and Figure 1 of that full document does show long term correlation of temperature with CO2 and he describes that Figure 1 as being from the best data set (Maunu Loa) His conclusions appear to be commenting on the lack of short term correlation CO2/temp but that's no surprise as the oceans are one huge smoothing store both of heat and CO2. However the narrative at large is that CO2 is without doubt a direct driver of global warming, along with other gases. You only asked for a paper to show an alternative view which it does so do and states that clearly. There are many relationships in the whole atmosphere the point as ever is that no one yet really knows and for the IPCC to say they do, that the science is settled and we are all going to die tomorrow unless you, not they, pull in your belt, is just pure nonsense and a political stance, not a scientific one, no matter how much they try to say it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 30, 2022 9:48:23 GMT
No I asked Steppenwolf for data that supported his/her 'no correlation' assertion. We still haven't seen it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 30, 2022 9:51:12 GMT
No I asked Steppenwolf for data that supported his/her 'no correlation' assertion. We still haven't seen it. You asked me if I could help out. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 30, 2022 22:09:06 GMT
No I asked Steppenwolf for data that supported his/her 'no correlation' assertion. We still haven't seen it. You asked me if I could help out. yes when Steppenwolf was unable to answer my challenge, I asked you 'So can you help Steppenwolf by posting climate data of provenance that refutes that long term correlation of temperature with CO2 levels or not.'It was always about the correlation. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 30, 2022 22:19:23 GMT
You asked me if I could help out. yes when Steppenwolf was unable to answer my challenge, I asked you 'So can you help Steppenwolf by posting climate data of provenance that refutes that long term correlation of temperature with CO2 levels or not.'It was always about the correlation. ?? and I posted such information which was a peer reviewed paper that raised questions as to that correlation and concluded that there was no distinct correlation. Why is this a problem? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 30, 2022 23:07:10 GMT
No it didn't so conclude.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 1, 2022 15:51:29 GMT
No it didn't so conclude. Well it came pretty damn close. The absence of correlation for temperature decrease and CO2 decrease means that the process is not reversible as it would be, if associated to less radiation absorption by CO2. The process of ocean uptake of CO2 involves complex and multiple mechanisms of the whole carbon cycle, differing from simple degassing. The independence of on time and month temperature changes in relation to CO2 and vice versa is consistent and indicates that more CO2 in the atmosphere did not imply warming. And that only after some warming months CO2 enrichment becomes notable. The absence of correlation with huge volume of industrial emission to the atmosphere seems a very robust indicator of the independence of temperature variable relative to CO2 |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 1, 2022 19:39:46 GMT
As I said earlier his whole preposterous beef is in supposing correlation has to work in the short term to be valid. Well with an 11 year sun cycle that's never going to be true is it (+ other short term factors) The whole point is the long term correlation which very much is shown.
Temperature going up long term: proven
That (if continued) that has significant adverse effects: very probable
That it correlates with increasing CO2: very probable
That the CO2 is significant in causing the temperature increase: more likely than not
That the man made CO2 is significant in this: possible
That we can do something about this: possible
Arguing that it's OK to do nothing until we have the complete proof: dumb beyond measure
Demanding that we immediately take dramatic measures to end CO2 production now: very dumb
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 1, 2022 21:15:16 GMT
As I said earlier his whole preposterous beef is in supposing correlation has to work in the short term to be valid. Well with an 11 year sun cycle that's never going to be true is it (+ other short term factors) The whole point is the long term correlation which very much is shown. Temperature going up long term: proven That (if continued) that has significant adverse effects: very probable That it correlates with increasing CO2: very probable That the CO2 is significant in causing the temperature increase: more likely than not That the man made CO2 is significant in this: possible That we can do something about this: possible Arguing that it's OK to do nothing until we have the complete proof: dumb beyond measure Demanding that we immediately take dramatic measures to end CO2 production now: very dumb So to be clear a peer reviewed study by a climate scientist is a preposterous beef. The whole climate emergency narrative is based on the fact that CO2 is a driver of the warming cycle, along with other things, but CO2 is portrayed as what we emit today will kill us tomorrow or if you like 1 ton of CO2 emitted by anyone on earth results 3 square metres of arctic summer sea ice gone. That is the narrative. Long term correlations may exist but all are tempered by other events and activities. The sea levels are correlated to the amount of ice at the poles and glaciers unless of course there is a huge ice dam in North America or the Mediterranean basin is suddenly flooded or Isostatic recovery is underway, or volcanoes are raising land etc etc. The whole point is that CO2 rising now does not of necessity lead to higher temperatures tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 1, 2022 22:56:33 GMT
Actually what's clear is you're not really engaging in debate here, just rote repeating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 2, 2022 1:28:10 GMT
As I said earlier his whole preposterous beef is in supposing correlation has to work in the short term to be valid. Well with an 11 year sun cycle that's never going to be true is it (+ other short term factors) The whole point is the long term correlation which very much is shown. That (if continued) that has significant adverse effects: very probable That it correlates with increasing CO2: very probable That the CO2 is significant in causing the temperature increase: more likely than not That the man made CO2 is significant in this: possible That we can do something about this: possible Arguing that it's OK to do nothing until we have the complete proof: dumb beyond measure Demanding that we immediately take dramatic measures to end CO2 production now: very dumb Temp was higher 2000 years ago than it is today. Maybe those pesky Romans built too many coal fired power stations? |
|
