What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
If that's not evidence, then what is ????
You got the before: high CO2 and high temperature, and you got the after: low CO2 and ice ages.
And in the interim period, most of the CO2 was removed from the atmosphere by a process that had nothing to do with temperature.
It can't get more obvious than that really.
It's not ... at most what's accepted is that something complicated is going on in the Antarctic, like with ocean currents.
No scientist would claim that CO2 is insignificant.
I really don't get you, Frogboy.
If you go into such details, then you enter the realm where you see temperature dependence from every possible source. Evidence shows temperatures which are a result of albedo, ocean currents, and CO2, and even things like cloudiness, desertification, aerosols, wind patterns, sunspots and even orbital oddities (Milankovitch cycles).
There is no such thing as evidence that shows ONLY the relation between CO2 and temperature.
You want the impossible.
Just take the evidence for what it is: something that is not clean, which contains noise, and it is a bit harder to understand than you would really like.
Although... actually there's this study which sort-of shows evidence like you want to see:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
It considered a large set of sources so that regional effects are reduced.
But for some reason you just keep ignoring it. Perhaps you could explain to me why you ignore this?
Now you are 'arguing' something completely different.
Frogboy isn't interested in whatever might be causing a temp increase [in recent responses]...ONLY that any suggestion that it is being caused by CO2 is questionable as ice cores show the alleged 'cause' happening AFTER the 'effect'....which cannot happen.
Now, if you continue to circle around that specific point it is definitely YOU who is ignoring what is said.
As I said a page or 2 ago. Stop and think. Leave this topic alone...perhaps even reread it all. If you look at it objectively you too will be scratching your head at some of your OWN comments....
AND it's a lost cause. You will not/cannot alter a person's set opinions....certainly not in a forum thread on the Internet...where EACH 'expert' is only as good as his/her last Google search...
I'm just trying to convey the message that the world is ugly and "imperfect" and nature cannot give an uncomtaminated example of a relationship that is only limited to CO2 and Temperature.
The ice cores are just as contaminated as all the rest.
What he wants, simply does not exist.
His conclusion is based on some fairy-tale assumption that the Antarctic is free of regional effects, that things like albedo and wind patterns don't play a role, and that the Antarctic data are free of any measurement errors. The worst assumption is, that you can put a CO2 graph and a Temperature graph on top of each other, and compare them 1:1 without taking into account the other possible effects. And the conclusion is pretty serious: let's not do anything because CO2 has an insignifcant effect.
This is not a flaw in the data, but it's a flaw in reasoning, that's what I'm trying to explain.
OK...I'll type it again, but more slowly so you can follow....
Ice cores show CO2 increases AFTER...that's AFTER...as in NOT BEFORE temperature increases.
That means...[no, just ignore some other side issue you keep repeating]...the SEQUENCE of EVENTS shown in the ice cores implies/indicates [which-ever you prefer] that temperature goes up...AFTER which CO2 levels rise.
That's what I see in the graph 'data' that Frogboy posted. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE to be inferred in that graph.
No 'flaw', reasoning or otherwise.
It's a simple timeline.
NOW...on the other hand...I DID suggest....that data may be absolute and infallible...in an ice core....thus in polar regions...you know....where ice is.... BUT...and it's pure speculation...if there were some equivalent 'ice core data' available from the equator it may show different results....but such data cannot exist ergo the speculation is MOOT....
Now, don't counter with some other tangent. Just say 'you finally get it'...
Yes, of course you could conclude that from those data.
But you cannot conclude that this means that temperature regulates CO2 in a real and physical sense, because there are also other physical processes that take place.
And therefore you cannot conclude that CO2 is insignificant in regulating temperature.
Just take this fictitious example:
Suppose there's a current that was stopped and started flowing again because of melting glaciers.
Suppose that the current transports a lot of heat towards the southpole (warming the southpole all of a sudden).
Also suppose that the current slowly but gently mixes deep oceanic waters with surface waters, releasing CO2 (creating more warming afterward).
Now... does this have ANYTHING to do with a temperature / CO2 relation?
No it doesn't.
It's a completely different physical process.
Well anyway... have a nice christmas just in case I forget tomorrow.
I give up.
Your middle name isn't 'troll', is it?....
No I'm not a troll....... it's just hard to explain.
The whole point is that you cannot simply say that temperature precedes CO2, because that assumes there's a simple physical process that relates the two.
Such a process simply does not exist...
Oh maybe if I explain like this :
Someone can ALWAYS put 2 graphs on top of each other and claim there's a relation between the two.
But without a sound physical process, that relationship is just meaningless and something that's fictional.
Do you agree so far?
I, for one, do not agree. You actually can say that temperature precedes CO2 if the observed facts so demonstrate.
Observations 'assume' nothing, Geo. And observations are not 'fictional'. You are trying to put words in Frogboy's mouth that have never been uttered by him.
No one, certainly not Frogboy, is saying there is any linear cause >> effect relationship between the observed initial temp increases and the subsequent CO2 rises, only that the latter can't possibly be the 'cause' of the former. If the observations are indeed correct.
Great. Another conspiracy theorist about the evil left wing cabal. Great. I'll be avoiding purchasing of Stardock products Froggy.
Afterthought:
When 2 graphs share the same x-axis measuring units (in this case, time), there is a relation between them. No 'claim' is necessary.
He'll have no problem with that.
You clearly have issues with English comprehension.
YOU CAN SAY 'temperature precedes CO2' simply because the timeline SHOWS it. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS A CONNECTION between them. it CAN BE ONLY COINCIDENTAL.
Daiwa understands this too ...comment #1658...directly AFTER yours I quoted here.
And 1661 'afterthought' is yet another way to show a RELATIONSHIP still without any discussion at all of cause/effect.
Now....
I am an AGW believer. Daiwa is not. And Frogboy is yet to be convinced either way. ALL THREE of us are trying to get you to understand some basic English comprehension....something you NEED before engaging in a debate of any kind....without simply being classed as a 'troll' and removed.
FWIW, my belief is that climate change is real. The science and historical record leave no reasonable doubt about that.
I'm yet to be convinced that anthropogenic CO2 production poses the threat to us that its 'believers' claim. Assuming for argument's sake that anthropogenic CO2 production is all the threat it is claimed to be, I'm yet to be convinced we have the capacity to do squat about it. It seems clear to me that we lack sufficient knowledge to know what the effects and unintended consequences of mitigation attempts might be if we went all in. Our ability to comprehend, and predict the net effects of, all the contributing variables, Earthly and cosmic, is miniscule in the grand scale of things and to think otherwise strikes me as the height of hubris.
Soon as Al Gore starts looking to make money elsewhere, we'll talk. Link
Just saw a science doc on telly last night [dated 2013] where the presenter showed a litre or so of the VERY FIRST ethanol produced PURELY from CO2 and sunlight...thanks to some genetically engineered bacteria.
Not sure of the production cost...but it's a MASSIVE step....way beyond solar arrays etc.
If man can actually REVERSE CO2 production...by using it to create an energy 'source' rather than just being a by-product then anything just may be possible...
Of course.... the GE bacteria will eventually mutate and we will all become its Soylent Green ... or Zombies...or something....
This might be of interest to you, Geo.
Umm... like I said, Paul.
Typical liberal fascist. Don't have "correct" opinions? Then they'll try to hurt you economically. We've seen that quite a bit lately. Thats liberal tolerance in action.
(and I don't believe in any left wing cabal, I just think people who like more state power will fi de causes to lobby for more of it)
Have you forgotten the first rule of laissez-faire? Let the market decide???? I'm doing exactly what your kind says I am supposed to do -- vote with my wallet. But now you got your panty in a wad because it is your money. LOL.
And since when are liberals supposed to "tolerate" anti-science ignorance? I for one never signed up for that. I despise anti-science propaganda.
The video I posted above was directed at you, to answer exactly this question. Though I didn't label it as such. So, I am now, it is directed at you to answer exactly this.
But, the answer to why CO2 *usually* lags is well known, and has been known for years, and you could find the answer with a few minutes Google search. You have used a computer and have heard of Google, right??? Thus it is plainly obvious to the most casual observer that YOU DO NOT WANT TO KNOW. That is why you are an anti-science cretin, and why I give you the butt kicking you richly deserve. Because you, as a computer professional have no excuse to be ignorant and thus must be willfully ignorant.
But, since you are too stupid or too lazy to look for yourself, I spoon fed it to you.
What excuse will you give us next Froggy Baby???
Sure... of course you can say that, it's no more than a description of the data.
But Frogboy then concluded that the influence of CO2 is small.
And to disprove his conclusion you've to show him a graph where a rise in CO2 precedes Temperature.
To make such a statement, he assumes a simple relationship between Temperature and CO2, which is not based on any physical process.
I drew the analogy of comparing 2 graphs at random and "proving" some kind of fictitious relationship, because that's what he's doing.
I've also tried to explain that the world is not that simple, there's no easy way to describe temperature, especially when you're trying to describe the temperature at a single point on the earth. Then you cannot average out regional effects - you've to include the regional effects into your analysis.
That's another mistake that Frogboy makes, he ignores the regional effects.
After all, if you look at the "lag", what is that really ... it's either a 200 year shift on the time-axis, or it's a 1 degree celcius shift on the temperature axis, or a combination of these.
This difference can be explained by a separate process. Or it can even fall within measurement error.
Then you don't have to go against ALL OTHER EVIDENCE that's been collected and suddenly the world makes sense again.
And that's the third mistake Frogboy makes. He ignores evidence like the Azolla event, because he claims that it's "no evidence", simply based on the notion that there is no "clear" evidence in it that CO2 precedes Temperature.
But it does show exactly that, and more. It also shows a strong link between CO2 levels and Temperature. You let the CO2 level of the atmosphere drop from 3,000 ppm to 300 ppm? Enter the ice age.
It's even more of a significant example, because the actions of the algae are a mirror image of the actions of humans. The algae buried trillions of tons of CO2. We humans are in the process of putting trillions of tons of CO2 back into the atmosphere.
As such this event is an extremely cool and useful piece of evidence about what's in store for us.
It's such a shame people don't treat it that way.
This thought is exploited by fuzzy guru's.
And by people who don't have a clue what they're talking about, but want their babbling to have some "value" by showing all kinds of flashy graphics.
You know why comparing a CO2 and temperature graph can be misleading?
Because
- temperature doesn't depend linearly on CO2 levels but logarithmically.
- (regional) temperature also depends on other things than CO2.
Without understanding the physical processes that are involved, such a comparison is a useless excercise in fuzzy "logic".
You can make a conclusion that sounds perfectly logical, but which completely misses the point.
You can conclude from such a plot that "CO2 lags temperature" and than you can be led to believe that this is a physical process itself and that CO2 does not influence temperature.
But by doing so, your conclusion goes against other observations and several laws of physics.
You know just last week I read about someone who sells pyramids because of some piezoelectric effect which removes harmful radiation... now that's just laughable because such a person knows the piezoelectric effect exists, but has no fucking clue about physics.
It's a shame though that he writes a whole page of his fuzzy logic that sounds convincing to my mother, who's going to buy one of his pyramids.
The point I'm making here is: to make an interpretation without at least some basic understanding of physical processes results in some kind of fuzzy logic which just makes no sense.
And with that I'll leave it at that. I won't press this point further.
You get my 'butt-kick' instead.
It doesn't matter who the target is....ALL members of this community can expect the freedom from personal attack.
I'll read that later and comment on it in a few days. After Xmas because Xmas is also important
Hard to imagine it hasn't sunk in yet but if B occurs after A, B cannot be the cause of A. A might be the cause of B, but such a temporal relationship doesn't prove A causes B either, it's just a temporal association. You can definitely say B does not cause A, however.
This assumes that the temporal observations (measurements) showing B consistently occurring after A are accurate/correct.
Your argument against the temporal evidence shown in Frogboy's 'flashy graph' is simply ludicrous. Neither a logarithmic relationship nor regional variance can defy or 'reverse' time.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
