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

#46    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,389 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 06 March 2013 - 01:08 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 06 March 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

I understand that ways of capturing it in the atmosphere, and even making money from it, are in the works.  Of course there is immense hype all the time about these technologies, so we will have to see.

My main takeaway was that the fear I had of a methane-caused runaway warming was me and not science.  That means that humanity will make it, maybe relatively painlessly, maybe with a good more trouble, but things will work out.

You are probably right about the overall impact of methane release, but I think your conclusion is largely a matter of faith rather than analysis. I certainly see millions of people been directly impacted by climate change in adverse ways and there is already significant migratory pressure within Africa due to climate change. Conflict and famine are somewhat inevitable on a local level, and it remain to be seen if the developed world will escape such outcomes.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#47    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,389 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:29 PM

Little Fish - if you can't admit that you have made a mistake about the trend stripping your credibility is shot and you might as well retire.
The grown up thing to do is admit you made a genuine mistake and move on.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 06 March 2013 - 09:33 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#48    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 06 March 2013 - 11:08 PM

you need to learn when you are beat.
watch the black knight monty python scene from the holy grail.

""Before analyzing the monthly data, being interested in longer than annual variations, we first removed the annual cycle from the global atmospheric CO2 data series by calculating a 12-month running average. This implies that we here consider the annual variation as noise only, and instead are looking for the underlying longer signal, the overall CO2 increase"
http://tech-know-gro...umlum_et_al.pdf

here is what you said, and now seem to be seeking to obfuscate:
"It claims that there is no major trend - because it removed it from the analysis - thats rather pathetic really"

the paper does not claim "there is no major trend", it is not a trend study, it is an attribution study to determine if co2 increases lead temperature or the other way around. amongst many important findings, it finds good correlation that the co2 increases follow temperature increases and it find negative correlation between man made co2 emissions and increases in atmospheric co2.
"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"

"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."

Edited by Little Fish, 06 March 2013 - 11:31 PM.


#49    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,389 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 07 March 2013 - 09:09 AM

Little Fish - you are wrong. If their method did what you said it did it would clearly show an upward trend as in the raw data within the full set of graphs. All the graphs have no trend. The method deliberately sets out to conceal the dominant trend, which is implicit in the data analysis. Its not incorrect for them to do so, but it is highly deceptive when they claim to have found dominent trends over and above the main one which they removed. The tiny rates of change which they attempt to analysis (making some gross assumptions whilst doing so) is not as significant as the steady and inexorable rise in CO2 which they pointedly ignore. Their attributions are statistically weak and based on unsuportable assumptions (within a noisy natural system over short time scales).
The proof of whether this paper says anything meaningful is if it is referenced in reputable science papers over the next few years, and I very much doubt that it will be referenced in any peer reviewed paper.

This is exactly the sort of anlysis which you accuse Michael Mann of having done to conceal trends  in his data - except these authors give no clue to the unwary layman of the fact that they have concealed the dominent upward trend. They attempt to dismiss this dominent trend as a response to natural SST rises - which is circular logic at its worst.

At this point I am going to call you an idiot because you cannot understand anything. This just confirms everything i have said about you and your ability to debate and assimilate new information which contradicts your prejudices - thanks.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 07 March 2013 - 09:46 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#50    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 07 March 2013 - 10:35 AM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 07 March 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

If their method did what you said it did it would clearly show an upward trend
no it would not, you are just demonstrating you have not understood the paper. in what universe does differentiating a straight 45 degree upward line (like the co2 line) produce an "upward trend"?
y=2X (a 45 degree upward line similar to the co2 line) differentiates to Y=2 (a flat line).
the paper is an analysis of changes in the data, not a trend analysis of the absolute levels.

"All the graphs have no trend"
the graphs are not intended to show trend, this has been explained to you previously, why are you stuck?

"The method deliberately sets out to conceal the dominant trend"
the method and paper is not attempting to show the trend, it is looking at variations in the trend.
the paper even acknowledges the trend in co2. its your mistake if you thought the graphs were showing trend.

"which is implicit in the data analysis."
its only implicit in your incorrect perception.

"Its not incorrect for them to do so, but it is highly deceptive when they claim to have found dominent trends over and above the main one which they removed."
I don't see anywhere in the paper where they claim to have found "dominant trends". the "DIFF's" to calculate data points were applied likewise to both the co2 and temperature data in order to detect causal signals. maybe you thought it was only applied to the co2 data?

"The tiny rates of change which they attempt to analysis (making some gross assumptions whilst doing so) is not as significant as the steady and inexorable rise in CO2 which they pointedly ignore."
the "tiny rates of change" IS the "steady and inexorable rise" and yet you claim one is more significant.

"Their attributions are statistically weak"
the correlation are visually striking yet you claim they are weak. reading your previous posts I suspect you are confusing correlation coefficient with statistical significance, the correlations in this study are much stronger than correlations you use to support your beliefs.

"and based on unsuportable assumptions"
what assumptions is this paper based on, which you consider unsupportable?

"I am going to call you an idiot because you cannot understand anything. This just confirms everything i have said about you and your ability to debate and assimilate new information which contradicts your prejudices"
evidently you are describing yourself, projecting again? accusing others of your own crimes is what you consistently do. i'm not the only one to notice.

"thanks."
you're welcome

Quote

This is exactly the sort of anlysis which you accuse Michael Mann of having done to conceal trends  in his data
no it is not. this study is an attribution of cause study. mann's study was a reconstruction of temperature in which he deleted the mwp and little ice age by overweighting contributions to trees known to be unresponsive to temperature.

"these authors give no clue to the unwary layman of the fact that they have concealed the dominent upward trend."
you need to read the paper, and not just assume falsely their graphs are intended to show trend.

"They attempt to dismiss this dominent trend as a response to natural SST rises - which is circular logic at its worst
it is a cause and effect attribution study. you are stuck because your belief is driving your thinking, rather than your thinking driving your belief.
the study does not "dismiss", it "finds" - read finding 2.

here is what the study finds.
1. The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
2. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11-12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
3. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
4. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
5. Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
6. CO2 released from anthropogene sources apparently have little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
7. On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.
8. Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appears to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

Edited by Little Fish, 07 March 2013 - 11:07 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users