The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?  (Read 55204 times)

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Education helps, but you can't make ppl learn when they choose not to.
You said a mouthful. I agree 100%.

They did away with literacy tests for voters because that was considered unconstitutional, but it would be nice if we could at least make candidates for political office take a test.

 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
I still await anyone's definition of global mean temperature, and an explanation of how it has been measured for the past 100 years. If you don't define your parameter, and explain how it is measured, you aren't doing science. No observational research.
I already presented you with observational evidence that clearly displays those parameters, way back in the thread. Here is is again, from a different source this time:

http://www.igbp.net/images/18.20d892f132f30b443080003064/1376383198054/PB5-fig3.gif

See the peaks and valleys of the graph? Those high and low points delineate the parameters for not just temperature, but also CO2 and methane. The graph clearly shows that all three sets of parameters are inextricably linked, and have been not just for 100 years, but for at least 800,000 years.

« Last Edit: 17/03/2016 15:43:53 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Bad choice, my friend, because (a) it clearly shows the temperature graph leading the CO2 graph throughout and (b) the Vostok ice cores only represent one point location, not the average of the entire surface of the planet.

It was exactly this superb, unequivocal and scientifically kosher data that first made me (and many others) question the "CO2 -> global warming" consensus, about 15 years ago. It is obvious that temperature determines CO2, not the reverse, at least in Antarctica. And as you can see from recent Mauna Loa data, the same applies in more temperate latitudes.

So, for those unsurprised by the clear evidence you have presented to the contrary, perhaps you could answer the question: please define global mean temperature and tell us how it has been measured for the last 100 years.
« Last Edit: 17/03/2016 18:59:35 by alancalverd »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Bad choice, my friend, because (a) it clearly shows the temperature graph leading the CO2 graph throughout and (b) the Vostok ice cores only represent one point location, not the average of the entire surface of the planet.
So, for those unsurprised by the clear evidence you have presented to the contrary, perhaps you could answer the question: please define global mean temperature and tell us how it has been measured for the last 100 years.
I don't agree, but doesn't really matter which is leading. Clearly, as anyone with eyes can see, temperature and carbon dioxide content ARE IN LOCKSTEP. One goes up, the other goes up. One goes down, the other goes down. Fred Astaire may have been "leading" Ginger Rogers, but they danced TOGETHER. And they stayed within the parameters of the dance floor. They didn't go flying up into the rafters at 400 parts per million.

Doesn't matter where those ice core samples are from, either. They still show a correlation between temperature and CO2 content of the atmosphere, regardless of location. As I have already pointed out before in this thread, the ozone hole used to appear every year over the Antarctic, and there ARE NO CFC'S USED OR PRODUCED IN ANTARCTICA. That's a sign of atmospheric mixing. Also, when I lived in North Texas, I used to get moisture dumped on me that came all the way up from the Gulf of Mexico. Sorry to break it to you, but those ice core samples aren't made of "local" water. It's thousands of years of snow frozen from a mix of atmospheric moisture from all parts of the globe.

Your "global mean temperature" question is based on confirmation bias. Of course it's getting warmer.

http://climate.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/4_c365-6-l.jpg

https://modernamerica2011.wikispaces.com/file/view/Ag_Upsala_Glacier.jpg/229426932/422x294/Ag_Upsala_Glacier.jpg

http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdLiarsMoncktonMcCartyGl.jpg

https://columbianewsandviews.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/glacier-melt1.jpg

http://www.thisisclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Mendenhall-low-resolution-jpeg3.jpg

http://www.oknation.net/blog/home/user_data/file_data/201202/11/5925939b2.jpg

http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/7_kyetrak_glacier_700-757x467.jpg

I can't make you open your eyes. I've been trying for several days now. Clearly, you're not interested in the scientific method. I would bet money you work for a big corporation and are motivated primarily by capitalist interests. That and ignorance are the only two reasons to disseminate flat earth misinformation like this, and you don't seem like the typical ignorant denier. You argue more like a well-informed lawyer working for the bad guy.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2016 12:17:03 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Several years ago I proposed a simple experiment in which we would reduce worldwide anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions by 25% over a 5 year period without anyone suffering a change in standard of living, to see what effect it might have. The idea was taken up by the World Bank and the UK government's chief economic adviser, but nothing useful has been done. No experimental research.

What the F!

How exactly would you reduce CO2 emissions without shutting off power? Reducing the world's wealth growth?

You are not on the same planet as the rest of us. The idea was never taken up by anybody with a brain. You are deluded. I say this because somebody has to, otherwise you will become more mad.


Hold his breath :)

Clean coal power plants would reduce co2 emmissions, as would moulton salt reactors.

Reverse combustion systems placed over cooling tanks to capture and so covert CO2 emmissions.

You can tell me there are not ways to reduce Co2 emmisions  without shutting off power.

we are wasteful even with waste.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/turning-carbon-dioxide-back-into-fuel/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

Totally possible to increase energy production and reduce Co2 emissions at the same time. Still I'd like to see more research into new forests really, and maybe new forest housing.
http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://a.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/fastcompany/imagecache/slideshow_large/slideshow/2015/06/3047952-slide-s-2-in-these-new-neighborhoods-the-houses-look-like-trees.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fastcoexist.com/3047952/in-these-urban-forest-neighborhoods-the-houses-are-disguised-as-trees&h=422&w=750&tbnid=dTG3TBGlDi_c9M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=160&docid=GZk3xuYOFSjceM&usg=__ZL0snpL5JRsVo7QoKKXzZnK3Ktc=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihk5-lmMbLAhVjQZoKHYUzDgEQ9QEISzAH

P.s we really dont have any wealth growth, it's all gone upstairs, we just have ever increasing bubles of fiat debt paper and the illusion of a house bubble.

Firstly you clearly have never done any chmistry.

Secondly you do not undersntand that it will take much more energy to convert the CO2 coming out of the power plant back into fuel than it gets by burning the coal in the first place.

Thirdly you have no clue about the time scales and costs of the things you are talking about. How exactly would you finanace all this without taking wealth from somewhere else and thus reducing living standards?
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
How exactly would you reduce CO2 emissions without shutting off power? Reducing the world's wealth growth?
Stop farming animals for food.

Which would be a loss of wealth/lifestyle.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
How exactly would you reduce CO2 emissions without shutting off power? Reducing the world's wealth growth?
Stop farming animals for food.

Which would be a loss of wealth/lifestyle.
See ?? That's your problem right there. You're more worried about yourself than you are about the human race as a whole. Who cares if your lifestyle gets taken down a couple of pegs? I sure don't. You already unclog toilets for a living. What's to lose?

Speaking of which, between you and alancalverd, this thread has become constipated. Cram a veggie burger into your face so I don't have to listen to your nonsense anymore. FYI, it's less likely to clog your toilet on the way out.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2016 12:21:52 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Firstly you clearly have never done any chmistry.
Firstly, you don't even know how to spell chemistry. If you're on the skeptic side of this argument, I don't think you know jack squat about the subject.

This isn't just about chemistry anyway. It's about mass/energy transformation and the laws of Thermodynamics, particularly the Entropy law. The amount of mass lost as heat in a chemical reaction between a few grams of substances is so negligible that chemists usually don't factor it into their results, and that's even when the reactions are dramatic; to a degree, chemists "ignore" the physics in that case. However, the entropy created in the environment is significant when a mass/energy transformation like combustion is applied to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels. Any chemist could tell you that.

« Last Edit: 18/03/2016 12:11:38 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Let me chuck a spanner in the conversation,

Global warming is when entropy S can not emit fast enough to compensate for entropy S gain.

>E=>T

Simple rules of thermodynamics.






 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile


This isn't just about chemistry anyway. It's about mass/energy transformation and the laws of Thermodynamics,

Should that not be Photon potential energy transformations?

 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Firstly you clearly have never done any chmistry.
Firstly, you don't even know how to spell chemistry. If you're on the skeptic side of this argument, I don't think you know jack squat about the subject.

This isn't just about chemistry anyway. It's about mass/energy transformation and the laws of Thermodynamics, particularly the Entropy law. The amount of mass lost as heat in a chemical reaction between a few grams of substances is so negligible that chemists usually don't factor it into their results, and that's even when the reactions are dramatic; to a degree, chemists "ignore" the physics in that case. However, the entropy created in the environment is significant when a mass/energy transformation like combustion is applied to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels. Any chemist could tell you that.
And they would be barking up the wrong tree.

When the best steam turbine in the world works at peak efficency it converts about 32% of the heat energy into electricity. If you wish to convert the CO2 back you will lose more energy.

Of course if you are using Co2 or other substances then I don't know because I don't know what cobalt has to do with GW. That is why I know you never did any chemistry.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

I don't agree, but doesn't really matter which is leading.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is of the utmost importance to understand the mechanism of a system if you want to control it. You cannot possibly say that the bullet leaving the gun was the cause of your finger on the trigger (well, you might, but nobody would believe you) or that the light coming on was the cause of your pushing the switch. Or that pregnancy causes sex.

If A always precedes B, you can't control A by modifying B. 

Now it is established (at least by the Vostok ice cores, probably the only untainted data we have) that temperature leads CO2 concentration, both upwards and downwards. The Mauna Loa annual data confirms this, and the mechanism is pretty clear.

So however desirable it might be to stop burning fossil fuel (no question there), it won't change the direction of climate, which is obviously driven by something else. All it will do is provide a short-term means for politicians and other parasites to blame you and me for the inevitable (and divert tax subsidies to their friends' "renewables" industries) instead of getting off their backsides and doing something to mitigate the looming disaster.

I have to give the Cameron government credit for one thing, at least - reducing the subsidies for unreliable energy sources. But it's a mere scratch on the surface of the problem.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Which would be a loss of wealth/lifestyle.
Poppycock. I raised the question on air with group of beef farmers some  years ago. I said "If I abolished subsidies for meat farming and increased subsidies for protein vegetable farming, what would you do?" To a man (and a woman) they said "We'd grow vegetables. Much easier, less risk, and just as profitable."

Your wealth and lifestyle will come under serious attack when large populations begin to migrate in search of food. Why not take action to prevent it happening, or at least to seriously investigate the cause of climate change? 
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Which would be a loss of wealth/lifestyle.
Poppycock. I raised the question on air with group of beef farmers some  years ago. I said "If I abolished subsidies for meat farming and increased subsidies for protein vegetable farming, what would you do?" To a man (and a woman) they said "We'd grow vegetables. Much easier, less risk, and just as profitable."

Your wealth and lifestyle will come under serious attack when large populations begin to migrate in search of food. Why not take action to prevent it happening, or at least to seriously investigate the cause of climate change?

1, Not being able to eat the food I choose to is a loss of wealth.

2, I think there should be no agricultural subsidies at all. They are highly destructive.

3, As you have pointed out the link between CO2 and climate is not at all strong, or at least the cause and effect are not know which way round they are. So why do we need to panic about CO2?

4, Technological progress will make the use of fossil fuels rare soon, next few decades.
 

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile

I already presented you with observational evidence that clearly displays those parameters, way back in the thread. Here is is again, from a different source this time:

http://www.igbp.net/images/18.20d892f132f30b443080003064/1376383198054/PB5-fig3.gif

See the peaks and valleys of the graph? Those high and low points delineate the parameters for not just temperature, but also CO2 and methane. The graph clearly shows that all three sets of parameters are inextricably linked, and have been not just for 100 years, but for at least 800,000 years.

If one only concentrates only on temp and CO2, one might fail to recognize methane seems to be the precursor  to spikes in others.  While it may or may not be indicative of human activity.  It suggests that increased hydrocarbon abundance in the atmosphere has a causal effect.

AFAIK, recent human activity has increasingly influenced hydrocarbon abundance... :-\
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile

I already presented you with observational evidence that clearly displays those parameters, way back in the thread. Here is is again, from a different source this time:

http://www.igbp.net/images/18.20d892f132f30b443080003064/1376383198054/PB5-fig3.gif

See the peaks and valleys of the graph? Those high and low points delineate the parameters for not just temperature, but also CO2 and methane. The graph clearly shows that all three sets of parameters are inextricably linked, and have been not just for 100 years, but for at least 800,000 years.

If one only concentrates only on temp and CO2, one might fail to recognize methane seems to be the precursor  to spikes in others.  While it may or may not be indicative of human activity.  It suggests that increased hydrocarbon abundance in the atmosphere has a causal effect.

AFAIK, recent human activity has increasingly influenced hydrocarbon abundance... :-\

I'm affraid it's the same counter though;

Since we have been putting out more methane recently especially since the present warmish period has caused some melting of permafrost why has the temperature not shot up and has remained flat for almost 2 decades?

To me this says that other factors are more significant and the effect of humans is slight.
 

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
I'm affraid it's the same counter though;

Since we have been putting out more methane recently especially since the present warmish period has caused some melting of permafrost why has the temperature not shot up and has remained flat for almost 2 decades?

To me this says that other factors are more significant and the effect of humans is slight.


Truth be told, this doesn't look "almost flat" to me.  But I can see how you might choose to read it that way.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg/450px-Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg.png
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
I'm affraid it's the same counter though;

Since we have been putting out more methane recently especially since the present warmish period has caused some melting of permafrost why has the temperature not shot up and has remained flat for almost 2 decades?

To me this says that other factors are more significant and the effect of humans is slight.


Truth be told, this doesn't look "almost flat" to me.  But I can see how you might choose to read it that way.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg/450px-Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg.png

Not sure what data set you(or they) are using there. But the 1920 to 2020 rise of 1c is not, even if it continues, cause for alarm untill 2300, or later. I doubt we will be using fossil fuels for that long. We have only really significantly been using them for 200 years at most. Our technology is advancing very rapidly and many power systems look like they are just about to break through.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
the link between CO2 and climate is not at all strong, or at least the cause and effect are not know which way round they are. So why do we need to panic about CO2?


The object of my experiment (reducing the number of farmed animals) is to test the hypothesis. The production and consumption of farmed meat accounts for about 25% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. It can be reduced very quickly by simply not breeding animals for food, and if CO2 is a strong causative factor, this should produce an immediate change in the rate of change of global mean temperature.

The effect should be detectable within 5 years. If the effect is deemed to be desirable, we can continue the experiment until it becomes the norm. If there is no detectable effect, or things get even worse, we can reverse the experiment (I allowed for a reserve of breeding stock) and be fully carnivorous within a further 5 years or so.
 

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
Based on the Ice Core graph, it seems the topic of this thread is clearly answered.  Skeptics are wrong to claim no link.

Cause/effect somewhat debatable.  Looks like increased atmospheric hydrocarbons drives temp &co2 spikes.

What are the most likely causes for increased hydrocarbons? 

Animal population explosions
Plant population explosions
Methane trapped in crust released
Fracking
Tar & oil extraction

What else could be added to the list?
 
I suspect many of the past spikes have followed seizemic events, where the crust was ruptured, exposing methane in large quantities.  Most likely precipitated by earth quake. 

Can't rule out cosmic events rupturing crust or meteors carring methane, both seem unlikely, but possible.
 

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
The object of my experiment (reducing the number of farmed animals) is to test the hypothesis.
...

Changes in habitual behavior, often meets denial and resistance.  If you really wish to change habitual behavior, one needs to concentrate on educating the ignorant first.

Factory farming is problematic, w/regard to co2 and probably more culpable methane released by these activities.  Antibiotic use, imposes epidemic effects, worthy of fear-mongering.

This video is encouraging and disheartening, but worth a watch, it's somewhat educational. :)

« Last Edit: 19/03/2016 10:59:43 by JoeBrown »
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Based on the Ice Core graph, it seems the topic of this thread is clearly answered.  Skeptics are wrong to claim no link.

Cause/effect somewhat debatable.  Looks like increased atmospheric hydrocarbons drives temp &co2 spikes.

What are the most likely causes for increased hydrocarbons? 

Animal population explosions
Plant population explosions
Methane trapped in crust released
Fracking
Tar & oil extraction

What else could be added to the list?
 
I suspect many of the past spikes have followed seizemic events, where the crust was ruptured, exposing methane in large quantities.  Most likely precipitated by earth quake. 

Can't rule out cosmic events rupturing crust or meteors carring methane, both seem unlikely, but possible.

I must have missed the strong evidence that the climate is driven by hydrocarbon gasses. Which post was it in? That would be that hydrocarbons are more significant than any other factors in climate change.

Just because you want it to be so does not make it so!
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
LISTEN, you are ALL talking of things that is not the cause of global warming, they are factors of global warming.

The cause is exchange rate and the laws of thermodynamics.


Following the wrong path will only lead to the wrong answers.

factors -

1. For every person or animal born   >S
2. For every person that dies   >S
3. For every fire >S
4. For every action >S
5. For every EM source >S


Now if S releases E at rate A, but S gains E at rate B which is greater than A, then S only goes and can only go one direction, which is ''UP''.  I.e when S gains B at a rate that is way greater than A, in this example we will use air,
it will go ''up'' and not come back down.



 

 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Then why has the temperature gone down in the past?
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is of the utmost importance to understand the mechanism of a system if you want to control it. You cannot possibly say that the bullet leaving the gun was the cause of your finger on the trigger (well, you might, but nobody would believe you) or that the light coming on was the cause of your pushing the switch. Or that pregnancy causes sex.

If A always precedes B, you can't control A by modifying B. 

Now it is established (at least by the Vostok ice cores, probably the only untainted data we have) that temperature leads CO2 concentration, both upwards and downwards. The Mauna Loa annual data confirms this, and the mechanism is pretty clear.

So however desirable it might be to stop burning fossil fuel (no question there), it won't change the direction of climate, which is obviously driven by something else. All it will do is provide a short-term means for politicians and other parasites to blame you and me for the inevitable (and divert tax subsidies to their friends' "renewables" industries) instead of getting off their backsides and doing something to mitigate the looming disaster.

I have to give the Cameron government credit for one thing, at least - reducing the subsidies for unreliable energy sources. But it's a mere scratch on the surface of the problem.
Here's the part I want to focus on. You said, "It is of the utmost importance to understand the mechanism of a system if you want to control it." So tell me, where does the extra temperature come from that is causing the release of all that CO2 ?? What's the mechanism?

Oh, I know, it probably has something to do with applying combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels. When you burn stuff, that produces heat.

What you are talking about is natural. Let's say the Sun's output was a bit higher. That would raise temperatures, which would thaw permafrost, releasing greenhouse gases. In that case, temperature would lead.

However, human beings are now part of the equation. That's what you're not considering. In the last 150 years, we've obviously added a lot of extra heat to the system by releasing lots of stored solar energy that was trapped in fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide isn't just "following" the temperature lead anymore, coming up out of thawed permafrost and such. We are adding a lot of it to the atmosphere through combustion, and removing less of it because of deforestation.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums