[Craig W. Thomson]

And here's an interesting graph, showing a much stronger correlation, based on much more reliable data, than the temperature/CO2 graph so beloved of believers

FALSE, and I can see why you didn't post the article I found looking for that graph, because it says so:

Neuroskeptic

Magnetism: From Neuroscience to Climate Change?
By Neuroskeptic | October 16, 2015 7:50 am

"A few weeks ago, a pair of Canadian scientists, David Vares and Michael Persinger, published a paper concluding that climate change is not caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from burning fossil fuels, as most people believe.

"Instead, they say, global warming and the rise in CO2 are both caused by decreases in the strength of the earth’s magnetic field: Earth’s Diminishing Magnetic Dipole Moment is Driving Global Carbon Dioxide Levels and Global Warming.

"Why is a neuroscience blogger like me writing about a climate science paper? Because the senior author, Michael Persinger, is a well-known neuroscientist.

"Persinger is a professor at Laurentian University in Canada. He’s perhaps best known for this researches in the field of “neurotheology“, the study of the neural basis of religious experiences. Much of his work has focussed on magnetic phenomena and their influence on the brain.

"In the new paper, Vares and Persinger report a correlation between the strength of the earth’s magnetic dipole moment, atmospheric CO2, and global temperatures.

"Then again, this is just a correlation, and correlation is not causation. A correlation exists between CO2 levels and any other variable which has increased or decreased since 1980, such as, say, the average ticket price at American cinemas. It seems unlikely that movie tickets affect the atmosphere directly.

"To provide a direct causal link between the diminishing of the earth’s magnetic field and increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, Vares and Persinger cite a 2008 paper that found that magnetism affects the solubility of CO2 in water. With a weaker field, CO2 would become less soluble in the oceans and some would be released into atmosphere.

"However, as John Mashey (who brought this paper to my attention) pointed out to me, the cited 2008 paper explicitly rejects the idea that geomagnetism can explain global warming (although acknowledging that it might exacerbate it):

"The magnitude of the [geomagnetic-CO2] mechanism is small compared to the magnitude of the preponderant mechanisms driving the exchange of carbon between ocean and atmosphere, such as water temperature, biological pumping, overturning circulation… it would be preposterous to make the weakening Earth’s magnetic field responsible for global warming.

"Vares and Persinger go on to say that although CO2 is rising, this in itself “does not cause global warming”. Instead, they say that the change in energy associated with the Earth’s changing magnetic field “translates into an equivalent temperature” and this may relate to climate change.

"However, I believe there is a serious error in their calculation here. Vares and Persinger write (my emphasis) that

"If the CO2 increases into the atmosphere from the sea water because of the diminished magnetic field are associated with the increased temperature, then that energy should translate into an equivalent temperature. Applying the classic definition that 4.18 J is required to increase 1 cc (10^−6 m3) of water 1˚C at standard temperature and pressure (STP), then the total energy within the 5.1 x 10^18 m3 will be 2.1 x 10^13 J.

"With 1.72 x 10^13 J equivalence available from the change, the analogous temperature shift will be 1.2˚C. This implies that there is an equilibrium system by which the removal of the source energy is related quantifiably to the increase or decrease of the two connected variables. Thus, the equivalent value of the 1.2˚C would be reflected in the increase due to the release of CO2.

"4.18 J of energy are required to raise the temperature of 1 cc (ml) of water by 1˚C. There are 10^6 (one million) cc in one m3 (cubic meter) volume. Therefore in order to raise the temperature of 5.1 x 10^18 m3 of water, we require 4.18 x 5.1 x 10^18 x 10^6 = 2.131 x 10^25 J. Vares and Persinger state this value as 2.1 x 10^13 J, which is too small by 12 orders of magnitude. The error is that they appear to have multiplied by 10^ -6 instead of 10^6.

"So I believe that the proposed “equivalence” between the amount of energy provided by the Earth’s magnetic field, and the amount of energy needed to cause global warming, is an error. Global temperatures have in fact risen by a bit less than 1 ˚C since 1970. If I’m right, the change in magnetic energy would in fact only heat the oceans by 0.0000000000012 ˚C, not 1.2˚C as Vares and Persinger state.

"I’m not a climate scientist, but this seems to me like a problem for the attempt to suggest a causal link to underlie the correlation that Vares and Persinger report."

I'm not a climate scientist, but this seems to me like a problem for a moderator at a physics forum to suggest a causal link to underlie that correlation based on the hypotheses of "neurotheologists" rather than climate scientists.

In your own words,

Today at 10:48:57 »

"It's a model, based on an unproven and highly dubious hypothesis."

[Craig W. Thomson]

So what is wrong or biased with this article the other day from Nature?

 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/nature17145.html
http://www.nature.com/news/antarctic-model-raises-prospect-of-unstoppable-ice-collapse-1.19638

Nothing. We've merely got ourselves a renegade moderator on the loose, spreading misinformation.

Here's an article saying the same thing yours do, but from a ".org" site to add a bit of credibility.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/antarctica-at-risk-of-runaway-melting-20189

Here's another one explaining the misinterpretations of NASA's data with some good citation at the bottom:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/11/03/nasa-study-of-antarctic-ice-melt-misunderstood/

[alancalverd]

I'm not a climate scientist, but this seems to me like a problem for a moderator at a physics forum to suggest a causal link to underlie that correlation based on the opinions of neurosurgeons rather than climate scientists.

But I didn't. I merely posted a graph of correlation. The inference of a causal link must have been yours.

So be warned that unidirectional correlation, however strong, is not proof of causation unless (a) the maths stacks up and (b) the same maths correctly predicts correlation in the opposite direction. And also remember that cause always precedes effect.

You are not unteachable, Craig.

[Craig W. Thomson]

I merely posted a graph of correlation. The inference of a causal link must have been yours.

FALSE. Here's your quote, with bold face type for emphasis:

"And here's an interesting graph, showing A MUCH STRONGER CORRELATION, based on much more reliable data, than the temperature/CO2 graph so beloved of believers."

cor·re·la·tion
ˌkôrəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun
a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.
"research showed a clear correlation between recession and levels of property crime"
synonyms:   connection, association, link, tie-in, tie-up, relation, relationship, interrelationship, interdependence, interaction, interconnection; More
STATISTICS
interdependence of variable quantities.

I still can't believe they let a flaming troll be a moderator, spewing misinformation like a geyser. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. I hope you're ready to do battle with me over this for a very, very, very long time. I can almost guarantee I'm more hard-headed than you, plus, I like the human race and the environment and don't want to see them go away, which is a pretty strong motivating factor for me.

What's your motivating factor? Narcissistic delusions of grandeur? To hell with decorum. I'm ready to go to war with people like that if necessary. I would rather die than let you flat-earthers take out the whole planet.

[alancalverd]

The correlation shown in that graph is far stronger than any actual data relating temperature to carbon dioxide concentration. But those of us who speak English or understand science are aware that correlation is not proof of causation - the inference of causation was yours, not mine. To quote from the same paper - indeed your chosen sample of that paper

"Then again, this is just a correlation, and correlation is not causation. A correlation exists between CO2 levels and any other variable which has increased or decreased since 1980, such as, say, the average ticket price at American cinemas. It seems unlikely that movie tickets affect the atmosphere directly.

which is why I posted the graph in the first place.

The problem we have here is that you seem to be impressed by any mathematics that supports your preconceptions, but not any that challenges them. That is most unscientific.

If I have any motivation, it is a desire to help and encourage people to think critically and to value fact above hypothesis, opinion or propaganda.

[Craig W. Thomson]

The problem we have here is that you seem to be impressed by any mathematics that supports your preconceptions, but not any that challenges them. That is most unscientific.

If I have any motivation, it is a desire to help and encourage people to think critically and to value fact above hypothesis, opinion or propaganda.

Nonsense.

What you refer to as "preconceptions" come from books written by scientists, and from college courses taught by scientists. I find that in this forum, you consistently ask me to disregard this information in favor of your flat-earth climate change skepticism.

Not only that, when 97% of climate scientists in countries of all political stripes are in agreement, I don't need a non-expert like you telling me to "think critically" about their findings.

These are the Dark Ages of climate science. Instead of The Church controlling the conversation and keeping people ignorant, it is Big Business, money being the prime motivating factor of both parties. It's time for a Renaissance, flat earther.

[alancalverd]

What you refer to as "preconceptions" come from books written by scientists, and from college courses taught by scientists. I find that in this forum, you consistently ask me to disregard this information in favor of your flat-earth climate change skepticism.

If you read what I wrote, rather than what you think I might have written, I merely asked you to consider the information and whether the interpretation that you may have gleaned from others was strictly in accordance with it.

In leaping to the defence of the consensus you first asserted that the order of events was irrelevant to the distinction between cause and effect, then confused atomic chemistry with nuclear physics, and now claim, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary in this forum, that I think the earth is flat. Remember that 97% of scientists used to think that the sun revolved around the earth, combustion released phlogiston, and the atom was indivisible. If you find yourself talking nonsense in support of a hypothesis, it's just possible that the hypothesis is wrong.

You may be right in one respect, however. Now that politics rules science (at least in Europe and the USA) we may be approaching another Dark Age. The Renaissance began with skepticism, so please try thinking for yourself - the world needs you.

[jeffreyH]

What you fail to appreciate Craig is that the members you are insulting would actually like to help you. The fact that this forum hasn't banned you should tell you something about its ethos.

[Bored chemist]

Nobody is doing nuclear physics with fossil fuels.

The nuclear forces binding the nuclei together are not changed during combustion etc

(actually,strictly speaking, they are- but you don't have the background to understand that- in any event, the effects are tiny ).

You don't understand entropy*- so you are not in a position to soundly base arguments on it.
So that whole rant is irrelevant.

FALSE.

http://www.decodedscience.org/is-there-a-connection-between-a-burning-log-and-emc2/22390

Again, I understand Entropy just fine. When you take a bunch of solar energy that's concentrated in fossil fuels, then use combustion to release it according to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, you get a bunch of dissipated heat, ash and smoke that includes carbon dioxide.

It takes more energy to collect all that energy and carbon dioxide back together than you got burning it in the first place. That's the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or the Entropy Law. When you convert mass or energy from one form to the other, you are going to get Entropy.

By the way, the fact that you said nuclear forces both are and aren't changed during combustion renders your own rant irrelevant, and further demonstrates your need to consider retaking chemistry.

Thank you for citing that page.
It includes this
"A common misconception is that Einstein’s famous equation applies only to nuclear processes "
Now, who was it introduced nuclear physics to the discussion?
oh, that's right; it was you.
"bind·ing en·er·gy
nounPHYSICS
the energy that holds a nucleus together, equal to the mass defect of the nucleus."

Meanwhile, what did I actually say ?
well- how about this
"Nobody is doing nuclear physics with fossil fuels.
The nuclear forces binding the nuclei together are not changed during combustion"
And that is perfectly correct- so it is clear that nuclear binding energies have nothing to do with the situation.
But you brought them in.
If only there was a term for pointlessly introducing words; perhaps we should coin a new one.
How does "pleonasm" sound?

in the mean time, perhaps you would like to comment on your inability to accurately assess things like the power needed to run a train, or heat a house.
But I'd really like to know why if you "understand Entropy just fine" you chose to illustrate it with a reaction that has no entropy change?

Why did you do that- if (as some of us do) you really understand entropy, it's obvious that it's a laughable choice- so why did you pick it?
 

[Tim the Plumber]

Craig: ask  yourself about the mass loss in the reaction C + O₂ → CO₂, and please tell us the answers.

Which atom lost mass? Did it lose electrons, protons, neutrons, or something else?

If we now recycle all the atoms by photosynthesis and coal formation, then burn the carbon again, at what point will the carbon and/or oxygen atoms have lost enough mass to become some other species?

bind·ing en·er·gy
nounPHYSICS
the energy that holds a nucleus together, equal to the mass defect of the nucleus.

When you join particles together, that takes binding energy. Taking them apart releases the binding energy.

The entropy law assures me that last sentence of yours is ridiculous.

Again, either you're scientifically clueless, or you obfuscate just because you like to argue, both inexcusable for a moderator of a physics forum.

Why have you not either banned him or at least corralled him into the science for those who do not know the difference between chemistry and sub atomic physics?

Please tell me if ths thread ever egts to discuss the degree of warming we should expect from our release of CO2.

[Tim the Plumber]

And here's an interesting graph, showing a much stronger correlation, based on much more reliable data, than the temperature/CO2 graph so beloved of believers

What mechanism would you suggest is the dirving factor behind that?

Without such a mechanism it's not much at all.

Having read your posts since I understand that you were talking to the crank.

That is why there can be no serrious discussion here untill he is restricted.

[alancalverd]

 

What mechanism would you suggest is the dirving factor behind that?

The point is exactly that: the historic correlation between magnetic field and CO2 is as near perfect as you can wish for, but it is entirely spurious. There is no possible linking mechanism. Lesson 1: correlation does not imply causation.

Now if we add the observation from Vostok and Mauna Loa that temperature changes precede changes in CO2 concentration, we get lesson 2: causes must precede effects so CO2 cannot be the cause of temperature variation. However the evidence does suggest that temperature drives CO2, and we can propose several plausible mechanisms for that.

I have no desire to restrict anyone. Arguing with a convinced crank may at least encourage others to look critically at the facts even if he claims papal infallibility, and as he points out, Craig probably represents a majority in his denial of the obvious, though most of them can be excused on grounds of ignorance of the facts. As for the sixth-form insults, both BC and I have the thick skins you acquire with a sackful of professional qualifications and experience, and nobody else has complained.

[Craig W. Thomson]

The Renaissance began with skepticism, so please try thinking for yourself - the world needs you.

If I think for myself, you'll say I'm not following science. If I follow science, you'll say I'm not thinking for myself. It's a classic Catch 22.

This isn't about a mindset, or about me not thinking for myself, or me being brainwashed, or any of that.

What this is about is you casting doubt on sensible arguments that are backed up by science, by nitpicking and obfuscating the issues. I'm just trying to determine why you would do such a thing. I expect arguments like these from FOX news' comment section, NOT in a physics forum.

I mean, you posted a graph correlating the rise in CO2 to changes in the earth's magnetic field. News flash: There are a lot of laymen here, and that definitely sends the wrong message. You didn't even post a disclaimer. In fact, I had to look up the article you gleaned it from, and the study was conducted by "neurotheologists." Talk about a crackpot link.

Luckily, I am not as scientifically ignorant as you would like to believe, or would like everyone else here believe. I have almost 40 years of general science knowledge gleaned from reading books and magazines, plus some college science credits to officially back that up, so I see right through skeptics, and I've already tackled most of their tired arguments several times over at this point. This is just rehash, just staying in practice.

Again, it doesn't matter who came first, Ginger Rogers or Fred Astaire, the chicken or the egg, the temperature or the carbon dioxide, because right now, there seem to be a lot of chickens and eggs, and Fred and Ginger are both moaning loudly as they dance up in the rafters.

[Craig W. Thomson]

The fact that this forum hasn't banned you should tell you something about its ethos.

On the contrary, the fact that this thread is full of trolls moderated by a flamer me tells me something about its pathos.

You refuse to talk about science, choosing instead to post 100% passive-aggressive, thinly veiled, inflammatory tripe, and they let you get away with it, which tells me something else about the site, Sigmund Schadenfreude.

Again, if you don't believe applying combustion to fossil fuels can change the temperature and composition of a finite atmosphere, there's a simple test you can try at home. Drive your car into the garage, close the garage door, roll down the windows, and leave your car running.

Are you willing to die to prove your point? Because I'm not willing to die if the skeptics are wrong, more on.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Having read your posts since I understand that you were talking to the crank.

That is why there can be no serrious discussion here untill he is restricted.

Oh, look, the right wing fascist wants to crack down on my freedom of speech so he can talk about pseudoscience.

Big surprise.

FYI, that chart was produced by Canadian "neurotheologists," Liquid Drain-O.

[Craig W. Thomson]

However the evidence does suggest that temperature drives CO2, and we can propose several plausible mechanisms for that.

Again, while that may be true historically, you seriously need to update your information. Only in the last 150 years did we start plowing through fossil fuels at breakneck speed. In the last 800,000 years, CO2 content of the atmosphere was NEVER above 320, and as I have pointed out at least half a dozen times in these threads, we added another 20% to that in just 50 years. So now you need to accept the fact that there's a new factor to consider. Maybe temperature USED to lead, but that was before there were 7 billion people relying of fossil fuel consumption for their livelihood, which is UNPRECEDENTED.

So, whatever you have to say about temperature leading carbon dioxide LIKELY DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE, because THAT WAS THE OLD ATMOSPHERE, which did not have a CO2 content of 400 parts per million.

Temperature is not leading. Carbon dioxide is not leading. Fossil fuel consumption is leading.

END OF STORY.

[Craig W. Thomson]

both BC and I have the thick skins you acquire with a sackful of professional qualifications and experience.

Nonsense. If you had a sackful of professional qualifications, you wouldn't be in a public forum arguing with an artist. You would be hanging out with Stephen Hawking, publishing a scientific paper, or converting kinetic energy to mass. Public forums are for hobbyists and people who read pop science books, but they also harbor crank scientists and nobodies with science degrees eager to make themselves feel better by trashing out laymen and people who read pop science books. I am well experienced with this phenomenon.

I would bet money Bored Chemist has even less qualifications than you do. I can poke holes in his flimsy arguments, and I only have a passing knowledge of chemistry from studying biology and physics. I'm guessing I probably know more about chemistry than he does just from being a former professionally certified carpet cleaning technician. He's challenging me to do Calculus problems, but I would like to see him get urine, vomit, bile, feces, blood, wine, copy toner, Red Lake #40, tannins, and odors out of carpet. I guarantee you I'll totally school him in practical chemisty. He probably couldn't even clarify the distinction between detergents and surfactants without looking it up.

If the two of you have any real qualifications, I would guess you're corporate scientists for an oil or chemical company at best, which would also explain your tired skeptic arguments.

[Craig W. Thomson]

If you read what I wrote, rather than what you think I might have written...

you confused atomic chemistry with nuclear physics

I read what you wrote. Care to define "atomic chemistry" ??

https://www.google.com/search?q=atomic+chemistry&oq=atomic+chemistry&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Doesn't seem to be an entry with that heading, LOL

God, you are so full of it.

[Craig W. Thomson]

You are not unteachable, Craig.

No, but perhaps you are.

[cheryl j]

Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Pleased to encounter another fan of Kruger and Dunning. Should be required reading for Her Majesty's Inspectorates. Perhaps Craig is a warranted inspector?

It is a bit odd that you would pick Dunning Kruger bias to attack Craig with. It's not generally used to explain why people agree with the consensus, or why a consensus of experts, or if you will, the most knowledgeable people about a subject at the time, might be wrong. (We can quibble about whether it's the oft quoted 97% or somewhat less, but I think its fair to say a consensus of climate scientists agree that human activity has been a primary influence over global temperatures in the last 250 years. )

The  Dunning Kruger bias is more often an explanation for why outliers (which might describe your own position more than Craig's - just sayin')  believe something they do. It came up a lot during the GOP debates to explain how Ben Carson, graduate of Yale and chief of neurosurgery at John Hopkins and practicing surgeon for 3 decades, could reject evolution or modern cosmology.

The Dunning Kruger effect also comes up in explaining why a certain number of scientists or medical doctors become anti-vaccination or anti-gmo activists. The bias doesn't simply say "dumb people are too dumb to realize they are dumb."  People lacking expertise in an area underestimate their lack of knowledge, and those who are very competent in another area may be even more prone to do this. What's more, the skill set of intelligent or well educated people makes them particularly adept at rationalizing or defending beliefs they may hold for irrational reasons.

At anyrate I would pick another cognitive bias to attack Craig with or the majority of climate scientists he agrees with (perhaps Bandwagon effect?) If you are going to use the argument that alarming studies get more attention, most climatologists are corrupted by money and political pressure, or peer review journals are a joke, it does sound a little tin-foil-hatty, the equivalent in most science forum discussions of over-turning the chess board. 

I wish this discussion hadn't dissolved into insults. I was getting interested.