Page 3 of 4 [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

02 Jan 2013, 5:41 pm

JBlitzen wrote:
If manmade CO2 emissions were the culprit, then the rise in atmospheric CO2 in the last fifteen years would have a corresponding and proportional rise in global temperature.

Right?

Here is the latest NASA figure of temperature change:

Image
Source: Goddard Institute for Space Studies: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/, Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade, 2006: Global temperature change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 103, 14288-14293, doi:10.1073/pnas.0606291103 (updated with most recent data).

I suppose the 5-year running mean is the best response to your request.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Jan 2013, 6:03 pm

JBlitzen wrote:
Why not? A direct relationship is a direct relationship.


Correlation is a direct relationship.

Correlation is not necessarily cause/effect.

ruveyn



JBlitzen
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 364
Location: Rochester, NY

02 Jan 2013, 9:31 pm

GGPViper wrote:
JBlitzen wrote:
If manmade CO2 emissions were the culprit, then the rise in atmospheric CO2 in the last fifteen years would have a corresponding and proportional rise in global temperature.

Right?

Here is the latest NASA figure of temperature change:

Image
Source: Goddard Institute for Space Studies: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/, Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade, 2006: Global temperature change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 103, 14288-14293, doi:10.1073/pnas.0606291103 (updated with most recent data).

I suppose the 5-year running mean is the best response to your request.

Very cool. So there was a 40+ year stretch where manmade CO2 levels didn't rise? When was that, specifically?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Jan 2013, 9:33 pm

CO2 is not the only driver for temperature change. And it is not even the most powerful driver. Methane and water vapor or more potent greenhouse gases.

ruveyn



JBlitzen
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 364
Location: Rochester, NY

02 Jan 2013, 9:51 pm

Oh, so then there's no correlation between manmade CO2 and global temperatures? Cool.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Jan 2013, 12:22 am

JBlitzen wrote:
Oh, so then there's no correlation between manmade CO2 and global temperatures? Cool.


Yes there is a correlation. But is it a cause? And are there other factors causing temperatures to rise.

There is also a positive correlation between the average price of stocks and the height of hemlines on women's dresses.

What do you make of that?

ruveyn



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

03 Jan 2013, 2:33 am

JBlitzen wrote:
Very cool. So there was a 40+ year stretch where manmade CO2 levels didn't rise? When was that, specifically?

The graph I posted didn't display manmade (anthropogenic) C02 levels. It displayed changes in temperature.

The following graph displays the development of concentration of C02 in the atmosphere (ppm) since 1958.

Image
Source: US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/



Zone1135
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 2

03 Jan 2013, 7:54 am

I was going to read the whole thread but gave up on the first page. I'm not sure if it's a problem of if it has happened before or not, or if it's natural. I think the problem is the fallout. What will be the overall affect of this happening. How many people could it affect? If this was going to cause some damage wouldn't it make sense to try to prevent it? It's obvious that we are at least speeding up the process. If the earth got hit with a life ending asteroid every 10,000 years or so would it be okay just to dismiss it as natural an nothing to worry about?



JBlitzen
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 364
Location: Rochester, NY

03 Jan 2013, 4:39 pm

GGPViper wrote:
JBlitzen wrote:
Very cool. So there was a 40+ year stretch where manmade CO2 levels didn't rise? When was that, specifically?

The graph I posted didn't display manmade (anthropogenic) C02 levels. It displayed changes in temperature.

The following graph displays the development of concentration of C02 in the atmosphere (ppm) since 1958.

Image
Source: US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Exactly. There's no correlation whatsoever.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

03 Jan 2013, 4:53 pm

JBlitzen wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
JBlitzen wrote:
Very cool. So there was a 40+ year stretch where manmade CO2 levels didn't rise? When was that, specifically?

The graph I posted didn't display manmade (anthropogenic) C02 levels. It displayed changes in temperature.

The following graph displays the development of concentration of C02 in the atmosphere (ppm) since 1958.

Image
Source: US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Exactly. There's no correlation whatsoever.


Umm... Did you miss the steady increase in temperature and the steady increase in C02 concentration (ppm) in the atmosphere?

Funny, I thought I posted graphs of both...



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

03 Jan 2013, 5:32 pm

I thought he was being sarcastic. :?



JBlitzen
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 364
Location: Rochester, NY

03 Jan 2013, 8:02 pm

I don't see any steadiness to the rise on the temperature graph. It hardly looks anything like the rise on the CO2 graph, unless you cherry pick a couple short sections.

Show us some longer data, let's see if the trends even out and start to match up in the long run.



JBlitzen
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 364
Location: Rochester, NY

03 Jan 2013, 8:13 pm

Here, let me help.

Image

Look carefully at how temps dropped between 1880 and 1912 while CO2 rose.

And look at how temps skyrocketed from 1912 to 1945 while CO2's slope was unchanged.

And then look at how 1995 is almost the same temp as 1943 while CO2 had risen considerably. (Even assuming these figures are accurate and not adjusted or cherry picked, which of course they are.)

BUT OH GOD LOOK AT 1994 TO 2003, THE SUN EXPLODES!

Oh but wait, temps leveled off since then and haven't risen past the 1998 peak since, despite what that BS figure at 2003 implies.

In fact, holy s**t balls, look at this!

[img][800:664]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/GlobalTemperaturesSince1991.png[/img]

It's almost like there's no f*****g correlation.

But wait, why do these charts start at 1880? Is that when the earth was created?

Image

Wow, doesn't look like it. In fact, it looks like we're doing pretty good.

Image

Wow, I guess the Vikings must have been using more gasoline than we were. Explains how their little boats got around so fast.

Frankly, I wish it would warm a little more. Then Canada and Russia would open up for wide-scale agriculture.

It takes a real as*hole to recognize that we're in an interglacial period of an ice age and to still root for the glaciers.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

04 Jan 2013, 11:34 am

JBlitzen wrote:
I don't see any steadiness to the rise on the temperature graph. It hardly looks anything like the rise on the CO2 graph, unless you cherry pick a couple short sections.

Perhaps it would help if I had posted the statistical correlation between the two.

Image
Source: Professor Phillip D. Bennett. See explanation (and data sources) here: http://boards.fool.com/global-temperatu ... 76409.aspx

A correlation coefficient of 0.91 from 1880 to 2011 is far from "no correlation".

Which means that this:

JBlitzen wrote:
Look carefully at how temps dropped between 1880 and 1912 while CO2 rose.

And look at how temps skyrocketed from 1912 to 1945 while CO2's slope was unchanged.

And then look at how 1995 is almost the same temp as 1943 while CO2 had risen considerably. (Even assuming these figures are accurate and not adjusted or cherry picked, which of course they are.)

BUT OH GOD LOOK AT 1994 TO 2003, THE SUN EXPLODES!

Oh but wait, temps leveled off since then and haven't risen past the 1998 peak since, despite what that BS figure at 2003 implies.

In fact, holy sh** balls, look at this!

[graph omitted]

It's almost like there's no f***ing correlation.


... is simply cherry-picking. After all, if I had cherry-picked the 1900-1910 data and extrapolated it, I would have to assume that the world would be an ice cube by now.

And by the way...

JBlitzen wrote:
BUT OH GOD LOOK AT 1994 TO 2003, THE SUN EXPLODES!

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but if you are referring to the variability in solar output, then you might want to consult this recent review of the scientific literature on the subject:

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10 ... 012-9181-3

There really isn't much evidence to suggest that variations in solar output can explain more than a negligible part of the current rises in global temperature.

JBlitzen wrote:
But wait, why do these charts start at 1880? Is that when the earth was created?


1880 is the earliest year where the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has reliable (instrumental) data. Which means that estimates of earlier temperature levels are less certain, and thus have wider confidence bands.

Next topic:

Image

No source :evil:.

On such a long time scale, one needs to take into account climate factors which cannot have any effect on the current climate, for instance continental drift.

And then there is the fundamental uncertainty when it comes to estimates on such a long timescale.

Hmm:

Image
Source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carbo ... imate.html

Quite a bit of uncertainty indeed. And that's just for the CO2 concentration, which is easier to measure than historical temperatures.

Next topic:

Image

No source :evil:.

... I tracked it back to its originators at http://www.longrangeweather.com however, but I still found no credible source.

For laughs, though 8O:
http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/chart.pdf

Let's try a more credible approach:

Image
Source: National Climate Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html

Not exactly as pronounced as the longrangeweather.com graph, now is it?

Note that the black line is the most accurate, as it is based on instrumental data.



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

04 Jan 2013, 1:28 pm

GGPViper wrote:
Next topic:

Image

No source :evil:.

... I tracked it back to its originators at http://www.longrangeweather.com however, but I still found no credible source.


Counting the hebrew exodus from egypt as a historical event no less, while there is no archeological or historical evidence. :wink:


_________________
Down with speculators!! !


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 Jan 2013, 10:39 pm

JBlitzen wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
That humanity throuh his tools release a lot of CO2 and other greenhouses gaz is simply undeniable and a fact. Unless you think that much combustion would not release anything.

If manmade CO2 emissions were the culprit, then the rise in atmospheric CO2 in the last fifteen years would have a corresponding and proportional rise in global temperature.

Right?


You are assuming linearity which is exactly what one should NOT assume when dealing with chaotic dynamic systems. They are highly non-linear.

ruveyn