Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

CO2 and warming went in lock-step


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#16    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 04 March 2013 - 10:14 PM

View PostAsteroidX, on 04 March 2013 - 10:11 PM, said:

How bout that new radiation belt they found around Earth. Will that effect this process in any way. Or is there still too little information ?
unless its new its unlikely to change anything - that is unless it shows a strong upward trend of some kind over the last 100 or so years.
just because it was undiscovered and had no recordable effect on the planet doesn't mean it wasn't already part of the overall mix though.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#17    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 04 March 2013 - 10:31 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 04 March 2013 - 10:01 PM, said:

its also telling that they rushed it into the public domain before the dust had even settled - it usually would cost me about $35.00 to read such an offering.
it was not "rushed into the public domain"
it was peer reviewed and published in a science journal as is standard.
it costs $39.95 for the full paper, so it's not put in the "public domain"
http://www.sciencedi...921818112001658


#18    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 04 March 2013 - 10:42 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 04 March 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:

it was not "rushed into the public domain"
it was peer reviewed and published in a science journal as is standard.
it costs $39.95 for the full paper, so it's not put in the "public domain"
http://www.sciencedi...921818112001658
I never paid for it but freely downloaded it from the internet - that fairly public domain by my reckoning :tu:

Have you read it ??

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#19    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:15 AM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 04 March 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

Have you read it ??
yes i've read it.


#20    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:47 AM

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 04 March 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

I wonder how they will "hide" this data and "trick" the public into ignoring it. Thanks Little Fish, it was a good read.
going by the track record, i'd say the alarmists will definitely use obfuscation with an overdose of personal attacks, abuse and ad hominem fallacies.

here is a version of the full paper
http://tech-know-gro...umlum_et_al.pdf

a sizeable paper, but here are some choice quotes

"it is evident from the visual analysis that changes in atmospheric CO2 are generally not tracking changes in anthropogene emissions, which is contrary to expectation, if anthropogene CO2 is the main driver for the observed rise in global atmospheric CO2."
so man is not the main effect on co2, let alone temperature.

"In all four cases there is a negative correlation from the time of release and 17-24 months later between DIFF12 changes in anthropogene CO2 and DIFF12 changes in atmospheric CO2, showing that changes in the emission of anthropogene CO2 are not causing changes in atmospheric CO2"
hmm, "negative correlation" i wonder if a believer will be along to obfuscate everyone into distraction and confusion. And there's that lovely word "showing", and all based on empirical observations. no george lucas computer cartoons in sight.

"The lag is about 4 months for Ascension (8oS), 9 months for the South Pole (90oS), 14 months for Mauna Loa (20oN), and about 19 months for Alert (82oN) in the High Arctic. As each station is correlated with identical values (DIFF12 for anthropogene CO2) the observed lags suggest a sequence of events starting near Equator in the Southern Hemisphere, and from there propagating towards the two poles."
so the co2 increases originate in the ocean near the equator and propagate out to the poles over time. of course we already knew that solubilty of co2 has an inverse relationship with temperature water, meaning you warm the oceans and it gives off co2.

"suggests that changes in atmospheric CO2 appear to occur largely independently of changes in anthropogene emissions"
there it is again

"As cause always must precede effect, this observation demonstrates that modern changes in temperatures are generally not induced by changes in atmospheric CO2. Indeed, the sequence of events is seen to be the opposite: temperature changes are taking place before the corresponding CO2 changes occur."
and this confirms that ocean temperature releases the co2 (which overwhelms man made co2, or man made co2 makes up some of the difference of a natural threshold).

"As the theoretical initial temperature effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 must materialize first in the troposphere, and then subsequently at the planet surface (land and ocean), our diagrams 2-8 reveal that the common notion of globally dominant temperature controls exercised by atmospheric CO2 is in need of reassessment. Empirical observations indicate that changes in temperature generally are driving changes in atmospheric CO2, and not the other way around."
showing that alramists have confused cause and effect once again.

"Numerical global climate models generally assume atmospheric CO2 in combination with alleged feed-back effects on atmospheric humidity and cloud cover to have a clear net warming effect, and that changes in atmospheric CO2 therefore represent a main driver for global temperature changes. For that reason changes in temperature should therefore be lagging behind corresponding changes in CO2. However, figures 4, 6, 8 and 10 show correlation between changes in temperature and CO2 to be negative for negative offsets (temperature lagging CO2), indicating that changes towards higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 then empirically would associate with less rapid temperature increase or even a temperature decrease. However, as this would invalidate the basic assumption of CO2 having a clear net warming effect, the perception of temperature lagging behind CO2 must therefore be rejected. A visual inspection of the data displayed in figures 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9 also show the notion of temperature lagging CO2 to be implausible."
nice!

"A main control on atmospheric CO2 appears to be the ocean surface temperature, and it remains a possibility that a significant part of the overall increase of atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 (start of Mauna Loa observations) simply reflects the gradual warming of the oceans, as a result of the prolonged period of high solar activity since 1920 (Solanki et al. 2004). Based on the GISP2 ice core proxy record from Greenland it has previously been pointed out that the present period of warming since 1850 to a high degree may be explained by a natural c. 1100 yr periodic temperature variation"
exactly as i've been trying to point out for 5 years.

three wheels on my wagon......


#21    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 05 March 2013 - 07:40 AM

No need to attack anything other than the weakness of the argument. Basically ignore the trend - hide the increase :w00t:

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#22    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,586 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:43 AM

One hopeful thing about the demonstration that CO2 and warming seem to go together is that it never got out of control but seemed to be self-correcting.  The fears of melting the Siberian methane causing a Venus effect therefore don't have geological support.  It also seems that ecosystems do fine (even better) during warm periods than during cold ones.


#23    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:13 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 05 March 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

One hopeful thing about the demonstration that CO2 and warming seem to go together is that it never got out of control but seemed to be self-correcting.  The fears of melting the Siberian methane causing a Venus effect therefore don't have geological support.  It also seems that ecosystems do fine (even better) during warm periods than during cold ones.
The only issue I would take with that position is that there has never been a situation quite like this one. There are natural limits to how much greenhouse gases are available to be released - but the current system is releasing billions of tonnes of carbon which was previously deeply sequestered and unavailable.

The self correction mechansim which has always come into effect in the past is that the gulf stream has melted the arctic ice cap and caused a blocking body of fresh water in the North Atlantic. This has the effect of stopping the Deep ocean conveyor which prevents heat from getting to the arctic. This results in going from a zero ice situation to a rapid refreezing of thr arctic which doesn't stop until most of Northern Europe is part of the polar Ice cap.  This then persists for thousands of years. Worrying signs of the imminense of this possibility are a 30% decrease in the strength of the Gulf Stream in recent decades.

The problem here is that man is capable of continuing to pump out billions of tonnes of carbon which would provide sufficient heating to make the likelyhood of a refreeze  less - in this scenario Northern Europe would see a temporary plunge in temperatures followed by a continued gradual rise. Man is the fly in the ointment as his feedback mechanism has never occurred before so its very difficult to predict how he will effect the trajectory of the normal cycle.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#24    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,586 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:30 AM

I tend to think that human caused CO2 in the atmosphere will drop off naturally, as oil prices rise with increasing difficulty getting it and as other energy sources come into play.

The big question is whether this will be enough.  It is worrisome, and I very much wish we had technologies that in emergency could be used to pull CO2 and methane and whatever out of the atmosphere.  I just do not see any sort of international control on their emissions being effective. and unilateral actions while they may help a little are not enough.


#25    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 34,319 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:32 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 05 March 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

I tend to think that human caused CO2 in the atmosphere will drop off naturally, as oil prices rise with increasing difficulty getting it and as other energy sources come into play.

The big question is whether this will be enough.  It is worrisome, and I very much wish we had technologies that in emergency could be used to pull CO2 and methane and whatever out of the atmosphere.  I just do not see any sort of international control on their emissions being effective. and unilateral actions while they may help a little are not enough.

But we do have the technology, just not the energy to run it.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#26    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:34 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 05 March 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

I tend to think that human caused CO2 in the atmosphere will drop off naturally, as oil prices rise with increasing difficulty getting it and as other energy sources come into play.

The big question is whether this will be enough.  It is worrisome, and I very much wish we had technologies that in emergency could be used to pull CO2 and methane and whatever out of the atmosphere.  I just do not see any sort of international control on their emissions being effective. and unilateral actions while they may help a little are not enough.
All the experimental work on carbon dioxide sequestering from clean coal is been abandoned as uneconomical. If we went to clean coal then all renewables would immediately become cost competitive and there would be no need for "clean coal". The economics of trying to deal with the pollution caused by coal burning just don't make any sense and ultimately - if we are serious about reducing carbon emissions - this will drive coal out of the system. You are largely correct about oil though - it will drive itself out of the system due to supply crunch.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#27    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,586 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:35 AM

Yea probably we do; but I take it a lot of improvement is needed.


#28    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 05 March 2013 - 11:33 AM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 05 March 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

No need to attack anything other than the weakness of the argument. Basically ignore the trend - hide the increase :w00t:
the paper shows empirically that co2 increases follow temperature increases, which rules out increasing co2 causing increasing temperature.

the author has 100 published papers under his belt and a huge bio, you can't dismiss this lightly.

if the paper is correct it destroys all your arguments. has there been a peer reviewed and published rebuttal and response in the literature, or is it just being swept under the rug?


#29    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 05 March 2013 - 11:41 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 05 March 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

the paper shows empirically that co2 increases follow temperature increases, which rules out increasing co2 causing increasing temperature.

the author has 100 published papers under his belt and a huge bio, you can't dismiss this lightly.

if the paper is correct it destroys all your arguments. has there been a peer reviewed and published rebuttal and response in the literature, or is it just being swept under the rug?
I have looked at the argument. It analyses (poorly) the residual after the major trend is stripped out. It claims that there is no major trend - because it removed it from the analysis - thats rather pathetic really. It demonstrates the fluctation in CO2 induced by SST changes which is well understood and uncontravercial. It tells us absolutely nothing new here.
It is targeted at a none scientific audience who have not got the skills to judge the weakness of its arguments. if you want to pin your "credibility" to this paper be my guest :tu:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 05 March 2013 - 11:48 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#30    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 05 March 2013 - 12:13 PM

Another detailed analysis of how they cooked the books to produce their conclusions;

http://troyca.wordpr...al-temperature/

"Clearly, the HSS12 “DIFF12” method is not able to diagnose the long-term cause vs. effect.  Rather, it is quite easy for a small CO2 response to temperature, particularly one which will have no long-term impact, to create results in the DIFF12 graphs that make them appear (incorrectly) to provide great explanative power.  In other words, the method chosen in the paper does not support its conclusions.
So, does anybody with an academic grant for page fees want to take lead author on the reply for some easy publication credit? Posted Image"

Will there be a detailed academic rebuttal paper - I suppose it all depends on how much of a fuss this causes in the blogasphere. However I suspect that no serious acadmeic will waste his time on producing a rebuttal since there is such a weak argument to counter.

This falls into that gaping skeptics chasm of statistical abuse.  

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 05 March 2013 - 12:14 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users