CO2 – Dumb question

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by duncan webster on 14/08/2022 23:28:18:

Posted by blowlamp on 14/08/2022 16:53:18:

Why don't you just explain to us hard-of-thinking types how a roughly 0.0016% increase in CO2 level (due to human activities) is proven to be the cause of a change in the Earth's climate and how this "hard to understand" concept works…….

The increase is from 280 ppm in pre industrial days to 421 ppm now. This is an increase of 50%. I've no idea where Martin's 0.0016% comes from.

Edited By duncan webster on 14/08/2022 23:28:47

Edited By duncan webster on 14/08/2022 23:29:21

Ah well, if you had a PhD in Armchairology, you and all the world's climate scientists and physicists would be able to understand such things.

First year in Armchairology Studies is spent on Cherry Picking. Second year on Misinterpretation. Third year on Willful Ignorance of Evidence to the Contrary. Post graduate work in Google Research is highly regarded. This has been scientifically proven by Armchairologists to trump expert-level knowledge of Advanced Calculus, Physics, Geology, Chemistry, Thermodynamics, Oceanography, Atmospheric Chemistry and all the other hard sciences that make up Climate Science.

The motto of Armchairology is "We don't need to know what no stinkin' Latent Heat is in order to know there is a conspiracy afoot. We are smarter than that."

[Ebenezer GoodParticipant @ebenezergood76202]

Posted by Hopper on 15/08/2022 05:48:22:

Posted by Ebenezer Good on 14/08/2022 19:58:53:

The problem with this it's become media fodder, the cries of 'doom' ring out daily, even the ex head of Green peace had become fed up with it and released a YouTube video.

We are t discussing media coverage. We are discussing the science.

If you watch the video I linked the guy with the PhD does just that, to try and explain to the armchair experts that there's an awful lot of fibbing going on. It's almost become a religion for some to screech insults at any heretics that dare to question them.

Obviously reducing pollution in general is a good thing but shooting ourselves in the foot isn't clever.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Ebenezer Good on 15/08/2022 06:33:12:

Posted by Hopper on 15/08/2022 05:48:22:

Posted by Ebenezer Good on 14/08/2022 19:58:53:

The problem with this it's become media fodder, the cries of 'doom' ring out daily, even the ex head of Green peace had become fed up with it and released a YouTube video.

We are t discussing media coverage. We are discussing the science.

If you watch the video I linked the guy with the PhD does just that, to try and explain to the armchair experts that there's an awful lot of fibbing going on. It's almost become a religion for some to screech insults at any heretics that dare to question them.

Obviously reducing pollution in general is a good thing but shooting ourselves in the foot isn't clever.

Apologies. I was referring to the first part of your comment "The problem with this it's become media fodder, the cries of 'doom' ring out daily".

As for Phillip Moore, the guy in your video, his work has been widely scientifically discredited and debunked. It is at odds with the consensus of 97 per cent of climate scientists.  His tenure at Greenpeace Canada ended in lawsuits and acrimony.  He has since worked as a paid consultant and spokesman for a number of energy industry bodies and corporations. His credibility is zero. But he is making a good living spruiking pseudoscience for pay.

Always look at the source. Always.

Edited By Hopper on 15/08/2022 06:50:13

[Ebenezer GoodParticipant @ebenezergood76202]

No problem, it's become an emotive subject!

[RobinParticipant @robin]

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 00:19:44:

How do you know the ppm increase in CO2 is purely because of industrial activity and not caused by other factors as well?

The interglacial warming of the oceans is causing them to soak up carbon dioxide faster than limestone subduction can put it back. That is how levels became so dangerously low.

If we hadn't started burning coal and making cement we might have been heading for real trouble.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Well that's it over up here in Jockland now, 2022 the best summer since 1976, wow

I loved it, but struggled to do stuff a lot more than the last time we got a fabby summer

Was non stop rain at the start of the year and now its going to be non stop rain for goodness knows how long because these things always even themselves out

I call it the weather while others call it something else

I'll probably bf dead before the next one happens, I'll definitely be too old for it if I'm not

People pay hard cash for that experience, can't say I ever would

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Hopper on 15/08/2022 06:09:54:

Posted by duncan webster on 14/08/2022 23:28:18:

Posted by blowlamp on 14/08/2022 16:53:18:

Why don't you just explain to us hard-of-thinking types how a roughly 0.0016% increase in CO2 level (due to human activities) is proven to be the cause of a change in the Earth's climate and how this "hard to understand" concept works…….

The increase is from 280 ppm in pre industrial days to 421 ppm now. This is an increase of 50%. I've no idea where Martin's 0.0016% comes from.

Edited By duncan webster on 14/08/2022 23:28:47

Edited By duncan webster on 14/08/2022 23:29:21

Ah well, if you had a PhD in Armchairology, you and all the world's climate scientists and physicists would be able to understand such things.

First year in Armchairology Studies is spent on Cherry Picking. Second year on Misinterpretation. Third year on Willful Ignorance of Evidence to the Contrary. Post graduate work in Google Research is highly regarded. This has been scientifically proven by Armchairologists to trump expert-level knowledge of Advanced Calculus, Physics, Geology, Chemistry, Thermodynamics, Oceanography, Atmospheric Chemistry and all the other hard sciences that make up Climate Science.

The motto of Armchairology is "We don't need to know what no stinkin' Latent Heat is in order to know there is a conspiracy afoot. We are smarter than that."

You're free & easy with the insults but lacking in the substance. If you have a point, try making it.

Martin.

[RobinParticipant @robin]

Posted by Hopper on 15/08/2022 06:38:37:

As for Phillip Moore, the guy in your video, his work has been widely scientifically discredited and debunked. It is at odds with the consensus of 97 per cent of climate scientists. His tenure at Greenpeace Canada ended in lawsuits and acrimony. He has since worked as a paid consultant and spokesman for a number of energy industry bodies and corporations. His credibility is zero. But he is making a good living spruiking pseudoscience for pay.

Albert Einstein said, "It doesn't take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, all it takes is one fact".

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Ady1 on 15/08/2022 09:35:20:

Well that's it over up here in Jockland now, 2022 the best summer since 1976, wow

I loved it, but struggled to do stuff a lot more than the last time we got a fabby summer

Was non stop rain at the start of the year and now its going to be non stop rain for goodness knows how long because these things always even themselves out

I call it the weather while others call it something else

I'll probably bf dead before the next one happens, I'll definitely be too old for it if I'm not

People pay hard cash for that experience, can't say I ever would

I had to look up Scotland's recent heat wave temps. They are the same as our current weather here in Cairns, Queensland. But it's the middle of winter here! I am loving it .

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

It's not facts that are the problem. It's the assumptions which are magically derived from any facts

Like the existence of God, Man made global warming will always remain unproven

We all know the world has been getting hotter and the seas have been rising for 30,000 years, 400 feet so far

There's a LOT less ice nowadays, like a sliver of ice in a glass of coke the surface area to volume ratio is far higher nowadays and so the ice melts faster and counteracts less heat so we experience more heat

It's the 100% natural evolution of planet earth

We need to stop polluting, I get that one, but we can't stop things warming up and we never could

v

Edited By Ady1 on 15/08/2022 10:03:16

[RobinParticipant @robin]

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 09:35:53:

You're free & easy with the insults but lacking in the substance. If you have a point, try making it.

280ppm = .028%

421ppm = 0.0421%

An increase of 0.0141%

So .0016% was actually closer than 50% but no prizes

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Err, no. Science has confirmed it. No magic involved.

Edited By Hopper on 15/08/2022 09:58:13

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

I don't see anyone explaining the lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 levels in the graph I posted on page 5, over a more than 100 year period.

Martin.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

The "sides" of this argument don't bother me because

If I'm right we're all fkd

and if they are right we're all fkd too

so why worry

[RobinParticipant @robin]

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 10:11:47:

I don't see anyone explaining the lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 levels in the graph I posted on page 5, over a more than 100 year period.

Martin.

If you really want the answer to that you cannot be advised because the world has divided into factions and all you will get is propaganda.

To find the truth you have to go on a personal quest

[BikepeteParticipant @bikepete]

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 10:11:47:

I don't see anyone explaining the lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 levels in the graph I posted on page 5, over a more than 100 year period.

Martin.

That's a cherrypicked regional dataset (for the USA). Not useful evidence about global trends. And I'm unsure it's even accurate for the USA.

A reverse google image search shows the graph was taken from a paper by well known climate denier Piers Corbyn. Of course there is the "one fact vs 100 scientists" thing already quoted above, but against that, would people not agree that some souces are more credible (and likely to be correct) than others?

Here's a similar graph which does show global trends from the first vaguely credible source (a USA university) that came up on Google:

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

That is a heck of steep curve for a .0016 per cent increase. Or was it .0141?

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Robin on 15/08/2022 10:42:00:

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 10:11:47:

I don't see anyone explaining the lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 levels in the graph I posted on page 5, over a more than 100 year period.

Martin.

If you really want the answer to that you cannot be advised because the world has divided into factions and all you will get is propaganda.

To find the truth you have to go on a personal quest

So, science = propaganda = false

Googling from the armchair = personal quest = Truth.

Riiiight.

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Bikepete on 15/08/2022 10:47:11:

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 10:11:47:

I don't see anyone explaining the lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 levels in the graph I posted on page 5, over a more than 100 year period.

Martin.

That's a cherrypicked regional dataset (for the USA). Not useful evidence about global trends. And I'm unsure it's even accurate for the USA.

A reverse google image search shows the graph was taken from a paper by well known climate denier Piers Corbyn. Of course there is the "one fact vs 100 scientists" thing already quoted above, but against that, would people not agree that some souces are more credible (and likely to be correct) than others?

Here's a similar graph which does show global trends from the first vaguely credible source (a USA university) that came up on Google:

"…taken from a paper by well known climate denier Piers Corbyn…"

You mean this Piers Corbyn?

"Piers Corbyn is an astrophysicist and Director of WeatherAction longrange (months and years ahead) forecasts. He has a First class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College. He has published numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers, starting from an early age, on subjects ranging from meteorology to cosmology and galaxy formation and has presented at many international conferences."

Your own graph doesn't look very convincing, at either the start, the middle or the end, to be honest.

Martin.

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Hopper on 15/08/2022 11:20:01:

Posted by Robin on 15/08/2022 10:42:00:

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 10:11:47:

I don't see anyone explaining the lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 levels in the graph I posted on page 5, over a more than 100 year period.

Martin.

If you really want the answer to that you cannot be advised because the world has divided into factions and all you will get is propaganda.

To find the truth you have to go on a personal quest

So, science = propaganda = false

Googling from the armchair = personal quest = Truth.

Riiiight.

You shouldn't try to project your own lack of curiosity onto others.

Martin.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 12:20:18:

Posted by Hopper on 15/08/2022 11:20:01:

Posted by Robin on 15/08/2022 10:42:00:

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 10:11:47:

I don't see anyone explaining the lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 levels in the graph I posted on page 5, over a more than 100 year period.

Martin.

If you really want the answer to that you cannot be advised because the world has divided into factions and all you will get is propaganda.

To find the truth you have to go on a personal quest

So, science = propaganda = false

Googling from the armchair = personal quest = Truth.

Riiiight.

You shouldn't try to project your own lack of curiosity onto others.

Martin.

LOL. The Don Quixote school of research. Go on a personal quest and ignore the reality.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Hopper on 15/08/2022 12:32:13:

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 12:20:18:

Posted by Hopper on 15/08/2022 11:20:01:

Posted by Robin on 15/08/2022 10:42:00:

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 10:11:47:

I don't see anyone explaining the lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 levels in the graph I posted on page 5, over a more than 100 year period.

 

Martin.

If you really want the answer to that you cannot be advised because the world has divided into factions and all you will get is propaganda.

To find the truth you have to go on a personal quest

So, science = propaganda = false

Googling from the armchair = personal quest = Truth.

Riiiight.

 

You shouldn't try to project your own lack of curiosity onto others.

 

Martin.

LOL. The Don Quixote school of research. Go on a personal quest and ignore the reality. Come to think of it, it were wind turbines that were one of his main enemies he tilted at. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

Edited By Hopper on 15/08/2022 12:34:21

[BikepeteParticipant @bikepete]

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 12:13:00:

Posted by Bikepete on 15/08/2022 10:47:11:

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 10:11:47:

I don't see anyone explaining the lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 levels in the graph I posted on page 5, over a more than 100 year period.

 

Martin.

That's a cherrypicked regional dataset (for the USA). Not useful evidence about global trends. And I'm unsure it's even accurate for the USA.

A reverse google image search shows the graph was taken from a paper by well known climate denier Piers Corbyn. Of course there is the "one fact vs 100 scientists" thing already quoted above, but against that, would people not agree that some souces are more credible (and likely to be correct) than others?

Here's a similar graph which does show global trends from the first vaguely credible source (a USA university) that came up on Google:

 

 

"…taken from a paper by well known climate denier Piers Corbyn…"

 

You mean this Piers Corbyn?

"Piers Corbyn is an astrophysicist and Director of WeatherAction longrange (months and years ahead) forecasts. He has a First class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College. He has published numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers, starting from an early age, on subjects ranging from meteorology to cosmology and galaxy formation and has presented at many international conferences."

Your own graph doesn't look very convincing, at either the start, the middle or the end, to be honest.

 

Martin.

 

 

So do you acknowledge that I answered your question with my point about the graph you posted being a regional dataset, and that this explains why it is not representative of global temperature vs CO2?

If not, can you justify why USA data (bearing in mind that the USA covers ca. 1.87% of the surface area of the world) is an appropriate dataset to use to represent global trends?

Edited By Bikepete on 15/08/2022 12:40:43

[File HandleParticipant @filehandle]

Posted by Martin Kyte on 14/08/2022 18:09:06:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 14/08/2022 12:36:45:

There will be a multitude of biological differences between us and the builders of Stonehenge. despite modern technology protecting us from selection pressure we continue to evolve, perhaps even at a faster rate now than previously.

I think I may take exception to that statement. As you correctly point out we are technologically buffered from a good deal of selection pressure which is a posh way of saying that bad genes die out fast only with technology that increasingly ceases to be the case. Type 1 diabetes is easily survivable past reproduction age now wereas is was not 100 years ago. Mutation will continue and, with increased pollutants, likely at a higher rate. However the selection pressure for 'better' genotypes is buffered by our technologies. The result is a population more genetically diverse and less able to cope as a whole. This by the way is really not an argument for eugenics but we have to recognise that as a race we are rapidly distancing ourselves from the biology that produced us. We have at this time the technology to alter our genetic code both in the individual and at a more fundemental germ line level which in the first instance would affect just the indiviidual andin the secon all his or her progeny. We have already dominated the process of evolution and the challenge to us and future generations is how do we wisely handle the job ourselves.

regards Martin

Which bit do you disagree with? Our technologies do protect us from some selection pressures, but not all!
For example there is evidence that older people and those with a darker skin have worse COVID outcomes in our climate. both these groups have poor Vit D synthesis. Vit D is one of the factors needed for a proper functioning immune system. Others are likely to have a faulty immune system due to genetic changes or a better immune system. In this case COVID provided the selection pressure.
Although the role of vitamin D is not fully understood, and low levels have not been scientically shown to be a factor, i did start to supplement my intake at the start of the pandemic. Trials are looking at its role. But we are far from controlling evolution, any new selection pressure shows that up.
The reason I mentioned the rate possibly increasing is that there are areas of modern human evolution were the rate is faster than expected, but this might just be down to increased mutagens.
I do wonder if our preventing evolution (death) makes things better, or worse. i.e. more people = more pollution = worse conditions.

[File HandleParticipant @filehandle]

Posted by Hopper on 15/08/2022 11:16:48:

That is a heck of steep curve for a .0016 per cent increase. Or was it .0141?

I was once told to ignore any graph with false origins as they greatly distort the picture.

[Author]

Posts