Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

100 reasons why GW is natural


Moon Monkey

Recommended Posts

You linked me to an abstract that contained no details at all and was only slightly related to the topic of your claim of a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature trends.

Why will you not just post the relationship ? You have spent days and hundreds of posts avoiding it, surely it would be simpler just to back up your claim with a quick copy/paste.

Buy the paper then. Papers are considered enough to back up a point, just because you don't like this doesn't stop it being the case.

And you are the one disputing it. You have the data on your computer (I don't any more and I can't be bothered to format it again for your sake) so you can surely do it yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Moon Monkey

    19

  • Mattshark

    16

  • ninjadude

    3

  • MichaelW

    3

Buy the paper then. Papers are considered enough to back up a point, just because you don't like this doesn't stop it being the case.

And you are the one disputing it. You have the data on your computer (I don't any more and I can't be bothered to format it again for your sake) so you can surely do it yourself.

You...haven't....provided....a....paper.

I believe that you simply posted the first link in google scholar than contained the correct keywords. The abstract you linked has the words "the effect of CO2 on temperature is logarithmic" however the paper uses this as an argument for it's subject matter, which is the effect of CO2 on ice volumes. I do not believe the paper contains the mathematical relationship you claim it does. Is saying "if you cannot read the results I claim exist that is your problem not mine", how you do it....scientifically ?

Again you have the paper, you know the relationship, its your claim....the onus is on you to back it up. .... so simply post it...hell, post the entire paper. Copy and paste. Easy.

The data is still linked in the other thread but I don't need the data formatting by you I just want you to copy/paste the equation....you have seen it or so you claim.

Edit:

I have read a number of papers by the author of the abstract you linked and funnily enough he does have a hypothesis for my original question about the differing trends, however it is still being debated and is far from proven. I am surprised you never mentioned this, it is probably pure chance as I am sure you would have done. I didn't find the relationship you mentioned in any of his work so far though. So if you would just be good enough.......

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You...haven't....provided....a....paper.

I believe that you simply posted the first link in google scholar than contained the correct keywords. The abstract you linked has the words "the effect of CO2 on temperature is logarithmic" however the paper uses this as an argument for it's subject matter, which is the effect of CO2 on ice volumes. I do not believe the paper contains the mathematical relationship you claim it does. Is saying "if you cannot read the results I claim exist that is your problem not mine", how you do it....scientifically ?

Again you have the paper, you know the relationship, its your claim....the onus is on you to back it up. .... so simply post it...hell, post the entire paper. Copy and paste. Easy.

The data is still linked in the other thread but I don't need the data formatting by you I just want you to copy/paste the equation....you have seen it or so you claim.

Edit:

I have read a number of papers by the author of the abstract you linked and funnily enough he does have a hypothesis for my original question about the differing trends, however it is still being debated and is far from proven. I am surprised you never mentioned this, it is probably pure chance as I am sure you would have done. I didn't find the relationship you mentioned in any of his work so far though. So if you would just be good enough.......

That.....is......because.......site......rules......say......that......you......can't........cut......and......past......copyrighted.......material......here.......so.......the.......abstract......is......enough......

There is no such thing as proven in science. There is evidenced. You have it.

But to shut you up

fig4.jpg

nice strong relationship there.

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That.....is......because.......site......rules......say......that......you......can't........cut......and......past......copyrighted.......material......here.......so.......the.......abstract......is......enough......

There is no such thing as proven in science. There is evidenced. You have it.

But to shut you up

fig4.jpg

nice strong relationship there.

Lol....Thats a crappy excel first order linear fit don't be ridiculous I could fit anything to that and its not what you have been saying for the last week.

Anyhoo....just post the equation and reference or are you claiming the relationship is temp = 0.01.C02 - 2.89. :lol:

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol....Thats a crappy excel first order linear fit don't be ridiculous I could fit anything to that and its not what you have been saying for the last week.

Anyhoo....just post the equation and reference or are you claiming the relationship is temp = 0.01.C02 - 2.89. :lol:

Ok, go fit some things to it.

Still a nice strong relationship, quell surprise you have nothing to back up your point, I doubt you will since you never bothered putting any sort of relationship on your graph in the first place.

Interestingly, though, that is for the last 150 years ;)

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, go fit some things to it.

Still a nice strong relationship, quell surprise you have nothing to back up your point, I doubt you will since you never bothered putting any sort of relationship on your graph in the first place.

I don't even know what data you have decided to use...it certainly isnt the data we were talking about from the ice core sets. Have you made some up or just copied and pasted a graph from a blog ? :blush:

So are you claiming this is the trend relationship or not, or is it logarithmic ?. You are getting lost here mate....it is a tangled web you are weaving so I think it is best if you just post the equation from the paper that you claim to have seen.

Edit: Ah I see you edited while I was posting.....so you admit that data has nothing to do with the question at hand....ok, lets get back to that 8000 year thing we were talking about.

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even know what data you have decided to use...it certainly isnt the data we were talking about from the ice core sets. Have you made some up or just copied and pasted a graph from a blog ? :blush:

So are you claiming this is the trend relationship or not, or is it logarithmic ?. You are getting lost here mate....it is a tangled web you are weaving so I think it is best if you just post the equation from the paper that you claim to have seen.

I copied that graph from a blog, I told you to do it yourself since you contest something that is accepted with in science. That is your problem not mine. You couldn't be bothered to anything to back your claim up so why the hell should I do it for you?

But hey you are so good, you have never bothered to back up your claims then you dare to have a go at me for not doing it for you, incredibly hypocritical of you, but hey, you have been like that in every climate thread so it is hardly shocking.

That graph is both, there is strong log and linear relationship.

Just to add, for the full vostock, Petit et al. got r2 = 0.71 for the relationship between CO2 and temp.

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I copied that graph from a blog, I told you to do it yourself since you contest something that is accepted with in science. That is your problem not mine. You couldn't be bothered to anything to back your claim up so why the hell should I do it for you?

But hey you are so good, you have never bothered to back up your claims then you dare to have a go at me for not doing it for you, incredibly hypocritical of you, but hey, you have been like that in every climate thread so it is hardly shocking.

That graph is both, there is strong log and linear relationship.

It is not me that is claiming anything, I am posing a question which you said you had the answer to. You obviously haven't or you would have pasted it in here by now.

As for the excel 'relationship' over 150 years...will it hold across the 800,000 years of ice-core data ? If not it is another example of just picking data to suit a purpose and mislead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not me that is claiming anything, I am posing a question which you said you had the answer to. You obviously haven't or you would have pasted it in here by now.

As for the excel 'relationship' over 150 years...will it hold across the 800,000 years of ice-core data ? If not it is another example of just picking data to suit a purpose and mislead.

Actually I did, you just chose to ignore it and act dishonestly.

And if you look above, I gave you Petit et al. and the relationship they found across the whole Vostock data set.

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I did, you just chose to ignore it and act dishonestly.

And if you look above, I gave you Petit et al. and the relationship they found across the whole Vostock data set.

If you keep editing while I am replying then how can I reply to new information ?.....link, year ? Anyway I have no problem with a close-ish relationship over most of the data and hence the high R2 value....thats why I keep asking about the anomaly seen in the last 8000 years. My question was how do you explain it and you said the trends fit the known relationship....which is why I keep asking to see it. There are other hypotheses but lets stay with your 'fits the trend' answer. Are you claiming you did post this mathematical relationship ? And if so where ?

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but NZ is one small part of the world, which is as a whole, getting warmer. NZ's climate is also affected by other factors too remember, such as currents, winds and the big hole in the ozone layer.

Just saying climate has change historically is not an argument, it is merely a statement and in no way addresses the underlying issues behind those changes.

What underlying issues? My one was not a statement, it was based on fact. The Earth had a massive climate shift 700 million years ago which is bigger than the one we face today. NZ's climate is not the only one affected by currents and winds. Can you explain to me why is it that if all the worlds climates are heating, does our one cool?

I find it hard to belive that the world has been doing this for millions of years before the advent of the internal combustion engine and yet we blame ourselves for something we cannot control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you keep editing while I am replying then how can I reply to new information ?.....link, year ? Anyway I have no problem with a close-ish relationship over most of the data and hence the high R2 value....thats why I keep asking about the anomaly seen in the last 8000 years. My question was how do you explain it and you said the trends fit the known relationship....which is why I keep asking to see it. There are other hypotheses but lets stay with your 'fits the trend' answer. Are you claiming you did post this mathematical relationship ? And if so where ?

No I am saying I posted viable evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What underlying issues? My one was not a statement, it was based on fact. The Earth had a massive climate shift 700 million years ago which is bigger than the one we face today. NZ's climate is not the only one affected by currents and winds. Can you explain to me why is it that if all the worlds climates are heating, does our one cool?

Ok, the underlying issue would be what is forcing the changes we are seeing.

And if it was not a statement what was it then? Was it a question? No, it was a statement.

Whole planet warming

Small region of planet called NZ is cooling, this is likely the effects of the big hole in the ozone layer around your region.

I find it hard to belive that the world has been doing this for millions of years before the advent of the internal combustion engine and yet we blame ourselves for something we cannot control.

So you don't think it is odd that CO2 has risen by 100ppm in the last 150 year while it usually takes about 10000 years for that to happen, tied in with that we are seeing rapid temperature change?

Yeah ok.

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I am saying I posted viable evidence.

An abstract, unrelated to the topic, and a excel graph, unrelated to the topic which you took off some blog. Do you or do you not have the relationship that explains the differing trends seen in the CO2 and temperature change data for the last 8000 years and if you do are you willing to share it ? Yes or no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An abstract, unrelated to the topic, and a excel graph, unrelated to the topic which you took off some blog. Do you or do you not have the relationship that explains the differing trends seen in the CO2 and temperature change data for the last 8000 years and if you do are you willing to share it ? Yes or no.

Actually the abstract covered the topic, the log relationship is in fact in many papers. So yeah I have posted more evidence than you have ever done and that includes you useless graph which because your never bothered to put any calculations in it shows nothing.

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the abstract covered the topic, the log relationship is in fact in many papers. So yeah I have posted more evidence than you have ever done and that includes you useless graph which because your never bothered to put any calculations in it shows nothing.

So the ice-core data is useless.....ok, I'll inform the IPCC you said so.

The abstract was about the (possible) positive feedback forcing of CO2 on ice volume.

Do you or do you not have the relationship that explains the differing trends seen in the CO2 and temperature change data for the last 8000 years and if you do are you willing to share it ? Yes or no. If it is so widely available why have you not mangaged to either paste it here or link to it properly ?

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it me or have you two already had this debate a few months ago? Maybe it was with Questionmark, but I seem to remember the "show me the raw data", "I gave you a paper", "still no raw data", "paper", "data" theme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it me or have you two already had this debate a few months ago? Maybe it was with Questionmark, but I seem to remember the "show me the raw data", "I gave you a paper", "still no raw data", "paper", "data" theme.

Yeh but this time it is a new question he is dancing round, he just says he knows the answer but won't tell me. It was Questionmark who kindly linked the raw ice-core data a month or so back.

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it me or have you two already had this debate a few months ago? Maybe it was with Questionmark, but I seem to remember the "show me the raw data", "I gave you a paper", "still no raw data", "paper", "data" theme.

Because moon doesn't believe in anything where he hasn't seen the raw data, meaning he doesn't accept pretty much all science as far as I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeh but this time it is a new question he is dancing round, he just says he knows the answer but won't tell me. It was Questionmark who kindly linked the raw ice-core data a month or so back.

Do you mean apart from the bit where I told you the answer. Oh wait, you are ignoring that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean apart from the bit where I told you the answer. Oh wait, you are ignoring that.

That it is logarithmic....without showing what it is....or that it is a first order excel linear trend that badly fits different data to that which we were talking about ?

Humour me, show me where you told me the mathematical relationship, that you claim exists, is. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because moon doesn't believe in anything where he hasn't seen the raw data, meaning he doesn't accept pretty much all science as far as I can see.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. You can't expect him to believe in something without showing him the raw data. You're basically just telling him to "trust the experts." That's not science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it's quite the opposite. You can't expect him to believe in something without showing him the raw data. You're basically just telling him to "trust the experts." That's not science.

In this case it is Matt saying "I know what the relationship is, trust me it is right...but I am not going to tell you what it is"

As soon as I got the data off Q I saw an anomoly. The worlds top ice-core experts, who he has even referenced, can only hypothesise about it but immediately Matt said he knew what it was, that it wasn't an anomoly and that it fitted the known relationship between CO2 and temperature so I will keep calling him on it until he shows he knows more than the whole field...or just admits he is a BS-er. :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, the underlying issue would be what is forcing the changes we are seeing.

And if it was not a statement what was it then? Was it a question? No, it was a statement.

Whole planet warming

Small region of planet called NZ is cooling, this is likely the effects of the big hole in the ozone layer around your region.

So you don't think it is odd that CO2 has risen by 100ppm in the last 150 year while it usually takes about 10000 years for that to happen, tied in with that we are seeing rapid temperature change?

Yeah ok.

No, I don't think it is odd. There have been higher levels of C02 in the past which was not brought on by mankind. These were also followed by periods of cooling like in the Middle Ages where global temperatures rose dramatically for a few hundred years due to increased solar activity, then cooled. This was down to lack of solar activity and increases in volcanic activity which dropped global temperatures which caused crops to fail and brought about the French Revolution. Scientists have dug up ice cores in the Artic and Antartica with clear evidence that there has been higher levels of C02. It is also common knowlege that temperatures in periods like the Jurassic period were higher then modern day temperatures by as much as 5*C. NASA ahas also proven that global warming is happening on Pluto and Mars. I don't see any cars on Mars or nuclear power plants on Pluto, so can you explain to me why if we are responsible for this one, that identical warming proccesses are happening elsewhere in the Solar System?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't think it is odd. There have been higher levels of C02 in the past which was not brought on by mankind.

So what? All that proves is that there are other sources of CO2 than mankind. It says nothing on whether or not the current level of CO2, largely due to mankind, is affecting the climate.

These were also followed by periods of cooling like in the Middle Ages where global temperatures rose dramatically for a few hundred years due to increased solar activity, then cooled.

This only happened in Europe. In the New World, it was a period of long droughts and cooler temperatures.

This was down to lack of solar activity and increases in volcanic activity which dropped global temperatures which caused crops to fail and brought about the French Revolution. Scientists have dug up ice cores in the Artic and Antartica with clear evidence that there has been higher levels of C02. It is also common knowlege that temperatures in periods like the Jurassic period were higher then modern day temperatures by as much as 5*C.

Do you plan on actually getting to the point, or do you want to continue just throwing out random bits of irrelevant data?

NASA ahas also proven that global warming is happening on Pluto and Mars. I don't see any cars on Mars or nuclear power plants on Pluto, so can you explain to me why if we are responsible for this one, that identical warming proccesses are happening elsewhere in the Solar System?

They aren't. The "Mars is warming" claim is a load of crap (see this link for more details).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.