The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?  (Read 55126 times)

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 554
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Nobody is denying the CO2 is going up. However, the expected temperature increase is being over estimated by all the computers models. There is something wrong with their assumptions since the actual temperature rise is 100-1200% lower than the models are predicting.

If all models are too high by 100-1200% either we have over estimated the impact of CO2 on global temperature, or we have ignored moderating variables, such as water.

A warmer earth means more water in the atmosphere, since the amount of water that can dissolve in the air goes ups with temperature. More water in the air; clouds, means more reflection of solar energy back into space. If we ignore the water, we under estimate the reflection of solar heat. Water is the great moderator.

Relative to water and hydrogen bonding, which should be looked into more, kosmotropes and chaotropes are materials dissolved in water, which cause order or disorder, respectively, in water. For example, sodium cations are kosmotropic while potassium cations are chaotropic. Cells preferred concentrate the sodium outside inducing more ordered water outside, while concentrating potassium inside to induce more disorder in the water, inside the cell. This is needed to make it easier for enzymes. Enzymes tend to induce low density water on their surfaces. The potassium helps to disrupt the water caging. 

Kosmotropes and chaotropes ions can shift the high and low density equilibrium of the water and therefore the absorption spectrum. In the table below, the green chaotropic ions are attracted to low density water, while the red kosmotropic ions avoid low density water. If we shift the ionic balance, you can shift the hydrogen bonding binary of water.


« Last Edit: 10/03/2016 21:26:21 by puppypower »
 

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
Thanks for your comment. However, CO2 actually surpassed that mark before.

DOH,

Didn't realize my search returned an article from a year ago.  I heard in the news that February 2016 was the warmest month on record.  Following, January's record breaking and a few months late last year....

Saw the correlation I sought, instead of paying attention to the date on the article in question I leaped to insert my foot, anatomically inappropriately ;)

The string of record breaking warm months correlating to an persistently increasing COČ content, makes it hard to not want to SHOUT at the deniers.

Tried to delete my post before it was forever enshrined in Cyberspace, alas, I was too slow ;)  Fortunate or not the correlation still stands  :-\
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Correlation is not proof of causation.

There is a very strong correlation between the number of breaths a person has taken, and the probability of the next breath being his last. Breathing does not cause death.

Temperature is increasing, CO2 is increasing. Observed correlation. Now let's test for causation.

If you look at the physics of infrared absorption and actually put in some numbers, it's obvious that CO2 is not the cause. If you don't understand physics you can build a model of past data and predict what will happen next, and as puppypower points out, if that model uses CO2 as the causative input, you consistently get the wrong answer. Or you can look carefully at historic data and note the 500 - 800 year lag between temperature and CO2. Or you can look at recent data and ask why CO2 levels are highest in summer, when humans are burning less fuel of all types.

It beats me why people cling to the wreckage of a dead hypothesis in the hope that by sacrificing virgins or fossil fuels, they will save the world from a disaster. Climate change is inevitable and from a human perspective, probably disastrous if we carry on living on coastal margins and reproducing beyond a sustainable level. We already have a taste of the political shambles caused by a tiny economic migration. When the population of Bangladesh finds the country uninhabitable, we will see a humanitarian disaster way beyond the wildest hopes of biblical prophets, and taxing petrol won't stop it.

It's time to abandon the CO2 religion and do some science.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2016 08:11:57 by alancalverd »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
False. You're conveniently forgetting that the atmosphere of Mars is about 100 times thinner than ours. If you took everything out of Earth's atmosphere but the carbon dioxide, then added 100 times more carbon dioxide, that would NOT be enough to keep the planet warm.
I didn't "forget" it. I began with it. You'd be well advised to revise Dalton's Law of partial pressures.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Trees convert energy to mass. That's called "photosynthesis."
No. Tress convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree, and use solar energy to do so. Photosynthesis does not involve significant relativistic mass change, any more than the insects eating the tree (converting it back to CO2 and H2O, in order to extract chemical energy).
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
The IPCC is comprised of scientists from all countries including Russia (not a liberal democracy) and China (not a liberal democracy) and countries of all political stripes.
But it is primarily intergovernmental, i.e. driven by politics, and only seeks and publishes opinions with which the Panel itself agrees - apart from the footnote statement of incompetence I mentioned earlier.
 

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
Correlation is not proof of causation.

There is a very strong correlation between the number of breaths a person has taken, and the probability of the next breath being his last. Breathing does not cause death.

Temperature is increasing, CO2 is increasing. Observed correlation. Now let's test for causation.

If you look at the physics of infrared absorption and actually put in some numbers, it's obvious that CO2 is not the cause. If you don't understand physics you can build a model of past data and predict what will happen next, and as puppypower points out, if that model uses CO2 as the causative input, you consistently get the wrong answer. Or you can look carefully at historic data and note the 500 - 800 year lag between temperature and CO2. Or you can look at recent data and ask why CO2 levels are highest in summer, when humans are burning less fuel of all types.

Correlation is not causation.  It provides indicators to causation.  Humans are pretty good at figuring that out, one of the reasons we think we rule at the top of the food chain.  Also "science" relies heavily on such principles.

The sun is the predominant cause of global warming.  That's been the case for at least a billion years.  We don't know what exactly has caused past cycles of change.  We may have reasonable and/or educated guesses, but ultimately they're still guesses, because human kind has a very limited recorded history, by way of comparison.  We've analyzed geologic evidence and recognize a pattern in cooling and warming of the Earth which has a correlation to COČ atmospheric content.  Again correlation is not causation. We get that!

However, there's no evidence of a phenomena where fossils burn increases daily, until recent history like the present phenomena.  We know this phenomena has not occurred in prehistoric times (based on geological evidence), so there is little we can correlate it to.  We don't know the ultimate outcome of this behavior, other than it may/will likely influence the climate.  The degree and magnitude are a little sketchy because the Earth is a lively planet.

Some of us have a concern, human activity is persistently increasing the rate of pumping COČ (currently about 5 billion metric tons annually (5 GT)) of COČ into the atmosphere every year.  This is increasing the atmospheric concentration of COČ.  Human activity has been increasing the amount YOY for about 200 years. 

We *might* be able to see a correlation and identify the cause.  The projected effect is that the Earth will warm, due to increased atmospheric COČ content, because COČ slows heat from exiting the atmosphere compared to nitrogen (the bulk of our atmosphere nitrogen, then oxygen, argon, water vapor and finally COČ).

The COČ concentration is pretty minuscule, but it's increasing. Seems it only takes tiny amount of increase to make 1 degree difference.  That's not correlation being causation.  It's causation indicating correlation.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2016 14:27:31 by JoeBrown »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
There is a very strong correlation between the number of breaths a person has taken, and the probability of the next breath being his last. Breathing does not cause death.
That's a stupid analogy. Here's a better one.

Pull your car into the garage and leave it running. Now, close the garage door and roll down your windows.

You will notice the temperature and composition of the atmosphere in your garage changing. Now, breathing is most definitely going to be the cause of death.

You had better open the garage door now. That's where my good analogy gets weak. You can open the garage door and let in some fresh air. Our atmosphere does not have a garage door to open. We are stuck with the atmosphere we have, and it's high time we start taking better care of it.

Again, if your position is that applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels does not change the temperature and composition of the atmosphere, you have no business posting in a science forum.

You said, "It's time to abandon the CO2 religion and do some science."

You might as well be telling me that for every action, there is NOT an equal and opposite reaction. Scientists have been studying carbon dioxide molecules for a long time. They know what the properties of a CO2 molecule are, and they know what extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does. Right now, you're not just arguing with me, you're arguing with thousands of scientists with PhD's that agree with me.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2016 16:05:52 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
No. Tress convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree, and use solar energy to do so. Photosynthesis does not involve significant relativistic mass change, any more than the insects eating the tree (converting it back to CO2 and H2O, in order to extract chemical energy).
FALSE. That's not mass/energy conversion. It is the photon that provides the extra mass. In the center of a chlorophyll molecule, there's a magnesium atom. It captures photons and the plant uses them to build high energy molecules. When that happens, the photon is converted to mass. I didn't say it's a significant amount of mass. Anyone who understands the equation E = mc^2 knows that the speed of light squared and reciprocated means a tiny amount of mass comes from the energy of one photon. I never said it was "significant" relativistic mass. I know better. But it is still mass/energy conversion. Same goes for a termite eating a tree, just reversed. Those complex, high energy molecules enter a digestive system and get broken down. The heat energy of the photons food contains is what keeps your body temperature nice and toasty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy#Mass-energy_relation
« Last Edit: 11/03/2016 16:21:42 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Nobody is denying the CO2 is going up. However, the expected temperature increase is being over estimated by all the computers models. There is something wrong with their assumptions since the actual temperature rise is 100-1200% lower than the models are predicting.

If all models are too high by 100-1200% either we have over estimated the impact of CO2 on global temperature, or we have ignored moderating variables, such as water.
The ocean is part of the problem. It absorbs CO2, but we're not sure how much. So far, the ocean has been absorbing lots of the extra CO2, but we're not sure how saturated it is getting. Also, the oceans circulate pretty slowly and contain so much water that we're not sure how long it takes to get saturated all the way to the bottom. We've been lucky so far, but if and when the ocean is not able to absorb more CO2, all the rest is going to start staying in the atmosphere and rate of increase will accelerate. That would be a really bad thing.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Scientists have been studying carbon dioxide molecules for a long time. They know what the properties of a CO2 molecule are, and they know what extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does. Right now, you're not just arguing with me, you're arguing with thousands of scientists with PhD's that agree with me.

Yes, I remember it well. We studied and calculated the IR absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide as undergraduates. And many years after I got my PhD I noticed that the approved A level text either deliberately lied about it, or was written by people who had no idea what they were on about. The CO2 molecule, everywhere in the universe except in A level texts of the 1990s, is rigidly linear and has very few IR transitions. Which is just as well, otherwise the CO2 lasers that we use to treat patients and weld steel every day, wouldn't work.

It was at that point that I smelled my third rat in this pile of garbage, the first being the IPCC admission that they had no idea how to model the overwhelming effect of atmospheric water, and the second being the earliest publications of the Vostok ice core data, which clearly show temperature leading CO2 concentration in both the upward and downward directions - what we scientists call "causation" as distinct from "correlation". 
« Last Edit: 11/03/2016 16:38:57 by alancalverd »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
In the center of a chlorophyll molecule, there's a magnesium atom. It captures photons and the plant uses them to build high energy molecules. When that happens, the photon is converted to mass.

You would do well to review your textbooks on the subject of chemical bonds and photosynthesis. There's rather more to it (so far, about a thousand PhD theses) than that, and a plant would find it difficult to convert a 3 eV visible photon into a massive particle since the smallest (the electron) has a mass of 511,000 eV. 
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
In the center of a chlorophyll molecule, there's a magnesium atom. It captures photons and the plant uses them to build high energy molecules. When that happens, the photon is converted to mass.

You would do well to review your textbooks on the subject of chemical bonds and photosynthesis. There's rather more to it (so far, about a thousand PhD theses) than that, and a plant would find it difficult to convert a 3 eV visible photon into a massive particle since the smallest (the electron) has a mass of 511,000 eV.
Yeah, I know there's more to it than that. I took a year of Biology for majors my first year in college thinking at the time that would be my major. I fully understand how photosynthesis works, not to mention oxidative phosphorylation, cellular respiration, the citric acid cycle, the proton pump, etc. so maybe your are outclassed on this one. I also know what mass/energy conversion is, and the principle of mass/energy equivalence. I also know about the first and second laws of thermodynamics. So, you can obfuscate the issues and put words in my mouth all day long, but you're not going to change my mind about any of this because I have learned my science correctly.

For example, I never said a photon is turned into a "massive particle" by photosynthesis. I said its energy is converted to a miniscule amount of mass. Completely different statement. If you have a PhD, you ought to be able to recognize that those are two completely different statements.

On the other hand, you said, "Trees convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree," which makes me wonder if you are lying about that PhD. That's about the most amateurish misstatement about how photosynthesis works that I have EVER heard, including Sithdarth's at physforum.com two years ago, and his was pretty awful.



« Last Edit: 11/03/2016 17:12:26 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
It was at that point that I smelled my third rat in this pile of garbage, the first being the IPCC admission that they had no idea how to model the overwhelming effect of atmospheric water, and the second being the earliest publications of the Vostok ice core data, which clearly show temperature leading CO2 concentration in both the upward and downward directions - what we scientists call "causation" as distinct from "correlation".
That's not a rat you smell. It's a rotting baby you threw out with the bath water.

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

It should be as plain as the nose on your face that neither one of these two graphs is "leading" the other one. In fact, they diverge ever so slightly from time to time, with either one of the graphs being slightly ahead at different points in time. That's because there are a lot of other variables. Maybe there were more tectonic plates over polar regions at some points in time, so there was more albedo from ice. Similarly, if tropical forests drift too far from the equator, they could die off or even become deserts. Deserts move into equatorial regions and become forests, but that takes time, so there is a lag. The face of the earth is changing slowly, but constantly.

So, neither one of those graphs is leading the other, or "causing" the other. If anything, they BOTH "cause each other" to a degree. There are multiple FEEDBACK mechanisms that keep those two graphs more or less in lockstep for millions of years at a time. It's not just simple cause and effect. It's a dynamical system that exhibits chaotic behavior within certain paramaters established by those feedback mechanisms.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=134

We have interrupted those feedback mechanisms by applying combustion to 100 million years worth of solar energy that was previously stored safely away in ancient life forms buried in the earth's crust.

You claim you have a PhD. So, why are you arguing about this? You should know how to do math. You should understand big numbers. You should know what an "exponential function" is. I've got news for you. There are about 7,125,000,000 people on the earth right now. At current rates of population growth and resource consumption, we will have mined the earth to its core in about 500 years and will no longer have a place to stand. Here's a little slice of that exponential growth curve you can actually see:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png

... which reflects this trend:

https://www.google.com/search?q=world+population&oq=world+pop&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.2029j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

... and this one:

http://www.igbp.net/images/18.705e080613685f74edb800092/1376383183967/NL78-haberl-fig1.gif

As a certified non-mathematician, I can nevertheless tell you with certainty that those exponents are going to clash with the realities of a finite atmosphere and a finite planet's surface someday. In fact, I say they already are. I'm getting a little tired of arguing with people like you about the most important issue facing the future of our entire species.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2016 17:53:26 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
There is no doubt that there are far too many people on the planet, and our descendants will drown in their own excrement if we don't stop reproducing. That is indeed the most important problem facing humanity, and the one which we can solve absolutely, for ever, at no cost, and with enormous benefit to ourselves, every succeeding generation, and every other species, by doing nothing.

But there is no limit to human stupidity and gullibility. We are doomed.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
On the other hand, you said, "Trees convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree," which makes me wonder if you are lying about that PhD. That's about the most amateurish misstatement about how photosynthesis works that I have EVER heard, including Sithdarth's at physforum.com two years ago, and his was pretty awful.


6CO2 + 6H2O ↔ C6H12O6 + 6O2

The forward reaction is driven by sunlight*, and the reverse reaction generates heat or mechanical energy*, on my planet. How does yours work? 


*admittedly through a complex series of intermediates, depending on the species, but we physicists are simple folk, more concerned with the beginning and end than the bit in the middle.
« Last Edit: 12/03/2016 07:57:48 by alancalverd »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
The forward reaction is driven by sunlight*, and the reverse reaction generates heat or mechanical energy*, on my planet. How does yours work? 
When I got up this morning, there was a message in my inbox from you asking me in your "capacity as moderator" to back off the personal insults in the forum, and here you are implying I'm from another planet. What a total hypocrite. I'm used to getting flamed and trolled, but not by a moderator.

Regardless, mass/energy conversion works the same everywhere. It's an invariance thing, in case "simple folk" were not aware of that.

"Trees convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree," apparently, that's how it works on your planet. If I said that, I would get trolled by just about everyone. Maybe your moderator position is going to your head. Is that what you do here? Spout whatever scientific mumbo jumbo you like, then kick out indignant people who recognize that burning a hundred million years of fossil fuels causes a rise in global temperatures?

I don't care what you "believe." Climate change is the number one threat to our species. I've watched the problem getting worse for more than 25 years. I've watched Jeremy Rifkin's predictions about climate change fall like dominoes. I'm tired of skeptics controlling the conversation. I believe in science, not the opinions of moderators. You can cut off my free speech and ban me if you like. That doesn't change the fact that you're roughly half right about much of what you've said in this thread.

"Breathing does not cause death," weakest analogy ever. That's not an opinion. Not only did I take a year of Biology for majors in college, where I learned about all the "bits in between" of photosynthesis, I actually took a logic course as well.
« Last Edit: 12/03/2016 15:23:57 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
*we physicists are simple folk, more concerned with the beginning and end than the bit in the middle.
Are you sure you're a physicist? In my estimation as a layman, it's ALL important. To the best of my knowledge, real physicists operate according to the Scientific Method, which does NOT include sweeping the "bits in the middle" under a rug.

To cite a specific example, scientists can emit a photon from a device, and that photon can hit a detector, which marks the "beginning" and "end" of the photon's "life," but it's the "bits in the middle" that concern physicists, where non-locality and wave characteristics emerge as the photon passes though one or two slits. They put all those slits and half-mirrored surfaces in between the emitter and detector specifically to examine the "bits in the middle" between the emission and detection of the photon ...

Also, "simple folk" like Michelson and Morley built an interferometer while everyone else was riding around in covered wagons. They were looking for the unseen "bits in the middle" known as aether ...
« Last Edit: 12/03/2016 15:47:18 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
There is no doubt that there are far too many people on the planet, and our descendants will drown in their own excrement if we don't stop reproducing. That is indeed the most important problem facing humanity, and the one which we can solve absolutely, for ever, at no cost, and with enormous benefit to ourselves, every succeeding generation, and every other species, by doing nothing.

But there is no limit to human stupidity and gullibility. We are doomed.

Your are wrong.

There is plenty of room for everybody.

There are plenty of resources for everybody.

[not allowed to ppost video. Type in TED talks overpopulation Hans Rosling.

Watch the video.

Spreading this evil idea that there is a problem with human population is plain evil.
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
The forward reaction is driven by sunlight*, and the reverse reaction generates heat or mechanical energy*, on my planet. How does yours work? 
When I got up this morning, there was a message in my inbox from you asking me in your "capacity as moderator" to back off the personal insults in the forum, and here you are implying I'm from another planet. What a total hypocrite. I'm used to getting flamed and trolled, but not by a moderator.

Regardless, mass/energy conversion works the same everywhere. It's an invariance thing, in case "simple folk" were not aware of that.

"Trees convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree," apparently, that's how it works on your planet. If I said that, I would get trolled by just about everyone. Maybe your moderator position is going to your head. Is that what you do here? Spout whatever scientific mumbo jumbo you like, then kick out indignant people who recognize that burning a hundred million years of fossil fuels causes a rise in global temperatures?

I don't care what you "believe." Climate change is the number one threat to our species. I've watched the problem getting worse for more than 25 years. I've watched Jeremy Rifkin's predictions about climate change fall like dominoes. I'm tired of skeptics controlling the conversation. I believe in science, not the opinions of moderators. You can cut off my free speech and ban me if you like. That doesn't change the fact that you're roughly half right about much of what you've said in this thread.

"Breathing does not cause death," weakest analogy ever. That's not an opinion. Not only did I take a year of Biology for majors in college, where I learned about all the "bits in between" of photosynthesis, I actually took a logic course as well.

What has got worse in the last 18 years of not warming?

Mod, please leave this person on as he does a good job of representing the sort of drivel that we are being fed by those with an agenda.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile

Your are wrong.

There is plenty of room for everybody.

There are plenty of resources for everybody.
No, that's false. Again, at current levels of resource comsumption and population growth, we will have mined the earth to its core in about 500 years and will have nowhere left to stand. That is a mathematical and physical impossiblility. Finite means finite. The earth's surface, atmosphere and resources are finite.

Do you know what "inflation" is? Ever wonder why things keep getting more expensive? It's not like the days of the Beverly Hillbillies anymore. You can't find crude oil bubbling right up out of the ground. Most of the stuff that's easy and cheap to get at has been used. Now we have to resort to looking for oil two miles under the Gulf of Mexico with robots and trying to get oil out of shale by dangerous fracking, for example. That's expensive. When that's gone, oil is going to be even harder to find. This is called "scarcity." When supply is less than demand, price goes up. When what is demanded is more difficult to retrieve and process, that makes it even more expensive. That's inflation in a nutshell. Our economy runs on resources that are becoming more scarce.

Inflation never goes the other way because resources never become less scarce when population continues to grow and consume more resources per capita. Our planet's surface is NOT growing with us, you know. Here's how silly your argument is. You could have a 5,000 square foot home equipped with the best air conditioner on the market, but if you invite about 1,000 people over, and have them all light a single candle, it's going to be stifling and cramped in that house in no time flat, 5,000 people and you won't have enough room. That's because, like the Earth's surface, your house is finite. Unlike the Earth, your house has a door to let people leave whenever they want, and windows to let in some fresh air.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
What has got worse in the last 18 years of not warming?

Mod, please leave this person on as he does a good job of representing the sort of drivel that we are being fed by those with an agenda.

Bull, you're the one with the agenda. You obviously care more about economics and personal advancement than you care about the future of the human race.

Sixteen Warmest Years (1880–2015)
The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually-averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 16 (two tied at #15) warmest years on record.

RANK
1 = WARMEST
PERIOD OF RECORD: 1880–2015   YEAR   ANOMALY °C   ANOMALY °F
1   2015   0.90   1.62
2   2014   0.74   1.33
3   2010   0.70   1.26
4   2013   0.66   1.19
5   2005   0.65   1.17
6 (tie)   1998   0.63   1.13
6 (tie)   2009   0.63   1.13
8   2012   0.62   1.12
9 (tie)   2003   0.61   1.10
9 (tie)   2006   0.61   1.10
9 (tie)   2007   0.61   1.10
12   2002   0.60   1.08
13 (tie)   2004   0.57   1.03
13 (tie)   2011   0.57   1.03
15 (tie)   2001   0.54   0.97
15 (tie)   2008   0.54   0.97

That's what has changed in the last 18 years. Know what hasn't changed? The scientific and mathematical ignorance and personal arrogance of climate change skeptics like yourself. Your whole take on climate science is one of Confirmation Bias. You WANT to see no climate change in the data. You ignore empirical evidence. You use weak analogies. You mine and extract information and facts that fits your argument, discarding the rest. In short, you don't come to your conclusions by using the Scientific Method. That's your own personal problem. You don't have the right to take down the rest of the human race with you, and I will fight you clowns until my last breath, even if it contains mostly CO2.
« Last Edit: 13/03/2016 16:15:42 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

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

Your are wrong.

There is plenty of room for everybody.

There are plenty of resources for everybody.
No, that's false. Again, at current levels of resource comsumption and population growth, we will have mined the earth to its core in about 500 years and will have nowhere left to stand. That is a mathematical and physical impossiblility. Finite means finite. The earth's surface, atmosphere and resources are finite.

Can you at all justify that with actual numbers? I mean we have used about 2 cubic kilometers of oil. That is a very small number compared to the volume of the earth so any talk about mining down to the core is drivel. Obviously.

Quote
Do you know what "inflation" is? Ever wonder why things keep getting more expensive? It's not like the days of the Beverly Hillbillies anymore. You can't find crude oil bubbling right up out of the ground. Most of the stuff that's easy and cheap to get at has been used. Now we have to resort to looking for oil two miles under the Gulf of Mexico with robots and trying to get oil out of shale by dangerous fracking, for example. That's expensive. When that's gone, oil is going to be even harder to find. This is called "scarcity." When supply is less than demand, price goes up. When what is demanded is more difficult to retrieve and process, that makes it even more expensive. That's inflation in a nutshell. Our economy runs on resources that are becoming more scarce.

Yes, I fully understand the supply and consumption issues of oil. Indeed we have used the very easy stuff. We now have to work for it. In the 17th century coal was dug up out of the fields around Sheffield, then they had to keep going deeper as the easy stuff was used. Coal is now cheaper at the point of consumption than ever. This is due to the cheapness of transport and the size and effiency of all those open cast mines in places like South Africa and Austrailia.

Are you still a believer in peak oil even when the 100% confident predictions of it running out have just been proven to be drivel????? What will it ever take for you to let go of your favorite dooms-day scenario?


Quote
Inflation never goes the other way because resources never become less scarce when population continues to grow and consume more resources per capita.

And yet the price in real terms keeps getting cheaper. Today we use steel as a very cheap building material, no problem. This is due to our increased ability to get the stuff out of the ground which is due to increased population, increased wealth and better technology which is due to increased population with increased wealth solving problems.
Quote
Our planet's surface is NOT growing with us, you know. Here's how silly your argument is. You could have a 5,000 square foot home equipped with the best air conditioner on the market, but if you invite about 1,000 people over, and have them all light a single candle, it's going to be stifling and cramped in that house in no time flat, 5,000 people and you won't have enough room. That's because, like the Earth's surface, your house is finite. Unlike the Earth, your house has a door to let people leave whenever they want, and windows to let in some fresh air.

And shortly, this century, we will be mining the asteroids of the solar system and have more resources than we can possibly use in the next thousand years. Door opens...
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
What has got worse in the last 18 years of not warming?

Mod, please leave this person on as he does a good job of representing the sort of drivel that we are being fed by those with an agenda.

Bull, you're the one with the agenda. You obviously care more about economics and personal advancement than you care about the future of the human race.

Sixteen Warmest Years (1880–2015)
The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually-averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 16 (two tied at #15) warmest years on record.

RANK
1 = WARMEST
PERIOD OF RECORD: 1880–2015   YEAR   ANOMALY °C   ANOMALY °F
1   2015   0.90   1.62
2   2014   0.74   1.33
3   2010   0.70   1.26
4   2013   0.66   1.19
5   2005   0.65   1.17
6 (tie)   1998   0.63   1.13
6 (tie)   2009   0.63   1.13
8   2012   0.62   1.12
9 (tie)   2003   0.61   1.10
9 (tie)   2006   0.61   1.10
9 (tie)   2007   0.61   1.10
12   2002   0.60   1.08
13 (tie)   2004   0.57   1.03
13 (tie)   2011   0.57   1.03
15 (tie)   2001   0.54   0.97
15 (tie)   2008   0.54   0.97

That's what has changed in the last 18 years. Know what hasn't changed? The scientific and mathematical ignorance and personal arrogance of climate change skeptics like yourself. Your whole take on climate science is one of Confirmation Bias. You WANT to see no climate change in the data. You ignore empirical evidence. You use weak analogies. You mine and extract information and facts that fits your argument, discarding the rest. In short, you don't come to your conclusions by using the Scientific Method. That's your own personal problem. You don't have the right to take down the rest of the human race with you, and I will fight you clowns until my last breath, even if it contains mostly CO2.

I agree that the temperature of the world is higher now than it was in 1979.

Do you deny that there has been no significant warming since 1998?

In light of the lack of warming over the last 18 years how have you modified your expectations of future warming? Can we safely discout the top half of the IPCC's predictions? If so what is ther to worry about?

I do not wish to see no warming. I think it would be a better world for humanity if it was slightly warmer. +2c I think would be nice. Beyond that I do not know and would like to see what +2c would do before I formed my opinion.

You have totally made up your mind. You do not need to consider data. Show this to be wrong by answering my questions.
 

Offline Jolly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
There are many more deciduous trees in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, and they absorb huge amounts of CO2 in the summer months.

So why does the Mauna Loa data show exactly the opposite?


It does not say the opposite. See the attached image, which shows the greatest decline (rate) in CO2 concentration during the July and August, and the greatest increase (rate) during December and January.

Referencing the chart, there are a lot of earthquakes in the first part of the year 2008, less wild fires tho.

Looking at this
 Magnitude Ranging Between
              2000  2001   2002  2003 2004  2005  2006      2007 2008  2009     2010

Total       1505     1361 1341    1358    1672    1844    1865    2270    1948    2057    2136

There is a steady increase in activity, how much CO2 is released with earth quakes? Do we have any estimates on that. I'm just taking a breif look but there seems to be a connection.

Found this
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275539054_Positive_correlation_between_CO2_daily_peaks_and_micro-earthquakes_occurrence_in_deep_fault-caves_an_empirical_model

CONCLUSIONS
1. There is a positive   correlation   between   micro-earthquakes  (M<2.5)  and  atmospheric  anomalies  within   the   Benis   fault-cave.   Seismic   events   are   
related  to  sharp  daily  increase  in  atmospheric  CO2(>20 ppm).

2.
The area of influence for this gas mobilisation is up to 60 km and southward of the pit cave.

3.Furthermore,   there   is   an   empirical   relationship between  the  concentration  of  CO2 emission  and 
the  distance  of  the  epicentre,  for  the  geological units of the Betic Range.
« Last Edit: 14/03/2016 18:52:35 by Jolly »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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