CO2 – Dumb question

[File HandleParticipant @filehandle]

Posted by Ady1 on 15/08/2022 10:19:20:

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

If I'm right we're all fkd

and if they are right we're all fkd too

so why worry

There is little point worrying because as individuals, even as the UK, there is little we can do about it that will make any difference. If raised CO2 is a problem then it would need a world wide agreement and solution. however, parts of the World are too busy arguing over who owns / should own pieces of land.
i might feel better if I plant more trees in the garden, but apart from proving cool shady areas at the moment, they will make no effective difference to CO2 levels.

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Bikepete on 15/08/2022 12:38:21:

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

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

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

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

 

Martin.

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

You mean this Piers Corbyn?

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

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

 

Martin.

 

 

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

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

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

 

Rather than argue with each other about whose graph is best, let's pretend for a moment that my graph is either totally wrong or doesn't exist.

If we now look at your graph in isolation, do you think it really shows that temperature & CO2 track one another? I see some divergence (over decades) where I wouldn't expect it, so I don't think either of us can rely on our graphs to tell the whole story.

Even if temperature & CO2 were in lockstep, it still needs to be proved that human activity, rather than (say) Solar activity caused it and also that raised CO2 levels are a cause rather than an effect of warming.

What's important to me is that we can discuss matters like this.

 

 

Martin.

 

Edited By blowlamp on 15/08/2022 13:40:49

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

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

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

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

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

And therein lies the problem. The debate isn't comparing like with like.

Science rejects personal quests because everyone is biased. Instead science exposes data, methods, results and conclusions to critical review, a wide sharing process that improves quality because everything is tested. Quite different to gut-feel, common-sense, assertions, opinion, beliefs and political thinking. These can be right or wrong, but their conclusions are untrustworthy because they don't require evidence.

Robin's statement 'you cannot be advised because the world has divided into factions and all you will get is propaganda.' captures the issue:

• Whether or not the world is divided into factions can be confirmed by measurement. This part of the statement can be evidenced one way or another, and therefore has a much higher value than the next bit.
• 'All you will get is propaganda', can't be measured and tested. This is personal opinion, an assumption that conveniently supports Robin's general argument if true. But no data supports it, and never will. Might be right or wrong, but the guess is worthless because no-one can ever know. Robin saying it confidently and others agreeing with him doesn't help. As the rules of evidence are broken 'All you will get is propaganda' can't expose a truth or falsehood.

In science, it's important to keep the need for evidence in mind and to ruthlessly ignore unsupported conclusions. Global Warming isn't the sort of political issue where feelings and emotions have a valid part to play. Global Warming follows physical laws and no amount of wishful thinking will divert them. Scientific methods are far more likely to get the right answer than common-sense, and it's important to get this problem right.

A number of posts criticise climate modelling. Fair enough thirty years ago, but time marched on. Turns out what the models predicted back then for now was about right. Critics back then said models were rubbish, yet models got closer to reality than they did! Someone goofed. Anyway, I suggest it's safer to trust models producing successful predictions than folk who got it wrong and haven't noticed yet!

Dave

[BikepeteParticipant @bikepete]

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 13:33:51:

Posted by Bikepete on 15/08/2022 12:38:21:

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

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

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

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

Martin.

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

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

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

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

You mean this Piers Corbyn?

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

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

Martin.

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

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

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

Rather than argue with each other about whose graph is best, let's pretend for a moment that my graph is either totally wrong or doesn't exist.

If we now look at your graph in isolation, do you think it really shows that temperature & CO2 track one another? I see some divergence (over decades) where I wouldn't expect it, so I don't think either of us can rely on our graphs to tell the whole story.

Even if temperature & CO2 were in lockstep, it still needs to be proved that human activity, rather than (say) Solar activity caused it and also that raised CO2 levels are a cause rather than an effect of warming.

What's important to me is that we can discuss matters like this.

Martin.

Martin.

I'm afraid I disagree. Changing the subject and "moving on" means you do not have to take responsibility for the graph and argument that you promoted.

You promoted a graph using USA data which covers only ca. 1.87% of the earth's surface, and claimed that this disproved the global CO2 vs temperature correlation.

I provided a counter-example from a reputable source, using global data which shows a clear correlation, to demonstrate that the USA data is not globally representative.

Unless you can acknowledge that the graph you posted is misleading, I do not think there's much prospect of useful further discussion.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by Robin on 15/08/2022 09:55:28:

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

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

280ppm = .028%

421ppm = 0.0421%

An increase of 0.0141%

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

We seem to be adopting alternative arithmetic. 421/280 = 1.504 to three dp, so an increase of 50%. An increase from 0.028% to 0.0421% is an increase of 0.0141 percentage points, not a terribly helpful statistic.

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

Just to break into the "is it isn't it" argument regarding climate change.

As engineers with your Health and Safety hats on you should be aware that Risk can be defined as the probability of an occurance multiplied by the loss or damage the occurance causes.

In the Climate change scenario Loss is rather large, half the word uninhabitable, widespread famine, water shortage and possible total breakdown of civilisation if not human existance. For such a massive loss the probability needs only to be even very small for the Risk to be enormous. (Personally I consider the risk to be totally unacceptable.)

So even the most died in the wool climate sceptics would consider the probability to be non zero even if they feel it's a low number and for the rest of us the probability is somewhere approaching 1. So even with a low probability with such high damage are you still prepared to bet the farm.

regards Martin

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Bikepete on 15/08/2022 13:57:37:

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 13:33:51:

Posted by Bikepete on 15/08/2022 12:38:21:

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

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

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

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

Martin.

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

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

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

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

You mean this Piers Corbyn?

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

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

Martin.

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

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

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

Rather than argue with each other about whose graph is best, let's pretend for a moment that my graph is either totally wrong or doesn't exist.

If we now look at your graph in isolation, do you think it really shows that temperature & CO2 track one another? I see some divergence (over decades) where I wouldn't expect it, so I don't think either of us can rely on our graphs to tell the whole story.

Even if temperature & CO2 were in lockstep, it still needs to be proved that human activity, rather than (say) Solar activity caused it and also that raised CO2 levels are a cause rather than an effect of warming.

What's important to me is that we can discuss matters like this.

Martin.

Martin.

I'm afraid I disagree. Changing the subject and "moving on" means you do not have to take responsibility for the graph and argument that you promoted.

You promoted a graph using USA data which covers only ca. 1.87% of the earth's surface, and claimed that this disproved the global CO2 vs temperature correlation.

I provided a counter-example from a reputable source, using global data which shows a clear correlation, to demonstrate that the USA data is not globally representative.

Unless you can acknowledge that the graph you posted is misleading, I do not think there's much prospect of useful further discussion.

Quoting myself:

"Rather than argue with each other about whose graph is best, let's pretend for a moment that my graph is either totally wrong or doesn't exist."

What you mean is that once your graph is looked at critically & in isolation it shows itself for what it is and doesn't actually support your agument very well.

I like the way your graph illustrates a drop in temperature despite high CO2 and a rise in temperature with lower CO2 – over decades.

Martin.

[Paul RhodesParticipant @paulrhodes20292]

These internet debates invariably produce a lot of heat and frankly little light. Perhaps……..no I will resist linking this to global warming ( now Climate Change).I sometimes think this is the new religion. Belief supported by contentious facts. Demonising of non believers with terms such as “ denier” and universal claims to de bunk and discredit. Particularly unhelpful is the sneer of the insecure acolyte when they think they have found the argument winning form of words.

I have some suggestions for those trying to persuade ,or as some contributors would have it “educate” the don’t knows who make up the bulk of members. Do not rely on “the science”. There is no such thing ,but there is very properly the scientific method. Fourteen percent of medical publications in the BMJ ,one of the top two journals in the world are accepted as being wrong ,with as many as half being wilfully so( reporting this from memory so numbers may not  be “ scientific”. Do not post silly links ( such a World Wildlife Fund glossy literature), or graphs whose axis are so easily manipulated. Try some humility . For example consider that the USA data dismissed on a specious argument on percentage of land data, should be considered. Why? Well the data ,even adjusted data, represents one of the largest repositories for high quality data over the last 120 years. We have vey little for sub Saharan Africa, mid pacific etc.. This new found humility on either side might help explore why the recruiting sergeant for global warming/ climate change, viz. the Great Barrier Reef decline is now reported by Aus authorities not to be so.

My last tip is for the UK government. Please stop putting that green flash on the registration plate of new electric cars. It simply reminds my of how much of my tax contribution is used to support my sanctimonious neighbour who buys a new Audi each year whilst burnishing his green credentials . Green my lower digestive tract.

Edited By Paul Rhodes on 15/08/2022 14:34:16

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

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

Martin.

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

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

Stick with your metalwork and get back to the sarcasm when you've had more practice.

Martin.

[BikepeteParticipant @bikepete]

Posted by blowlamp on 15/08/2022 14:20:07:

Posted by Bikepete on 15/08/2022 13:57:37:

I'm afraid I disagree. Changing the subject and "moving on" means you do not have to take responsibility for the graph and argument that you promoted.

You promoted a graph using USA data which covers only ca. 1.87% of the earth's surface, and claimed that this disproved the global CO2 vs temperature correlation.

I provided a counter-example from a reputable source, using global data which shows a clear correlation, to demonstrate that the USA data is not globally representative.

Unless you can acknowledge that the graph you posted is misleading, I do not think there's much prospect of useful further discussion.

Quoting myself:

"Rather than argue with each other about whose graph is best, let's pretend for a moment that my graph is either totally wrong or doesn't exist."

What you mean is that once your graph is looked at critically & in isolation it shows itself for what it is and doesn't actually support your agument very well.

I like the way your graph illustrates a drop in temperature despite high CO2 and a rise in temperature with lower CO2 – over decades.

Martin.

No I don't mean that at all.

By concentrating on that concrete example I was just hoping you might realise that Corbyn used a clearly misleading graph. Perhaps you might then start to question why he did that, and to ponder what else could be misleading in his paper…

Anyway, FWIW I found this resource really useful when I was reading up on the subject – a very readable history which takes you through all of the logical steps via which the scientific case has been made (including many mis-steps and initial wrong understandings by scientists), and how the skeptical arguments (including the ones you made, e.g. on CO2 here) have been examined and addressed…

Good luck with your quest for understanding, I'd best get back to work.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Piers Corbyn is Jeremy Corbyn's brother. Need I say more

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by duncan webster on 15/08/2022 15:10:14:

Piers Corbyn is Jeremy Corbyn's brother. Need I say more

Yeah, don't leave us hanging.

Martin.

[RobinParticipant @robin]

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

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

If I had to go questing I'd prefer to follow Parsival

[RobinParticipant @robin]

Posted by duncan webster on 15/08/2022 15:10:14:

Piers Corbyn is Jeremy Corbyn's brother. Need I say more

Yes, you should mention that he appeared in the Channel 4 production called, "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

[derek hall 1Participant @derekhall1]

Phew, steady on gents……this is starting to get a bit heated and personal….I am sure the mods are hovering….

Regards

Derek

[File HandleParticipant @filehandle]

Posted by Martin Kyte on 15/08/2022 14:10:27:

Just to break into the "is it isn't it" argument regarding climate change.

As engineers with your Health and Safety hats on you should be aware that Risk can be defined as the probability of an occurance multiplied by the loss or damage the occurance causes.

In the Climate change scenario Loss is rather large, half the word uninhabitable, widespread famine, water shortage and possible total breakdown of civilisation if not human existance. For such a massive loss the probability needs only to be even very small for the Risk to be enormous. (Personally I consider the risk to be totally unacceptable.)

So even the most died in the wool climate sceptics would consider the probability to be non zero even if they feel it's a low number and for the rest of us the probability is somewhere approaching 1. So even with a low probability with such high damage are you still prepared to bet the farm.

regards Martin

Won't this solve the problem? Less people – less polution. probably the only likely solution that is going to reduce CO2.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Martin Kyte on 15/08/2022 14:10:27:

Just to break into the "is it isn't it" argument regarding climate change.

There is no argument. On one side you have 97 per cent of the world's climate scientists. On the other side, a rabble of armchair Google "researchers" with no training or expertise in the field at all plus a few opportunists feeding them what they want to hear for financial or political gain.

No argument. Just noise.

 

 

Edited By Hopper on 15/08/2022 23:03:48

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Hopper on 15/08/2022 22:49:42:

Posted by Martin Kyte on 15/08/2022 14:10:27:

Just to break into the "is it isn't it" argument regarding climate change.

There is no argument. On one side you have 97 per cent of the world's climate scientists. On the other side, a rabble of armchair Google "researchers" with no training or expertise in the field at all plus a few opportunists feeding them what they want to hear for financial or political gain.

No argument. Just noise.

Edited By Hopper on 15/08/2022 23:03:48

We know you like to dominate the conversation, but again, you have no proof to back up any of that claptrap.

Yours isn't the only opinion out there so you'll need to find some coping mechanism to deal with it.

Martin.

[RobinParticipant @robin]

Posted by Hopper on 15/08/2022 22:49:42:

On the other side, a rabble of armchair Google "researchers" with no training or expertise in the field at all plus a few opportunists feeding them what they want to hear for financial or political gain.

No argument. Just noise.

How about Historian David Starkey?

Is he an "armchair Google researcher"?

[Colin WhittakerParticipant @colinwhittaker20544]

How about? What about?

Whenever I see these two words I translate them to mean, OK I'm wrong but you have to prove you're not the same.

And the relevance of a historian to CO2's infra red absorption spectra is …….

Think Colin! Wise man and a fool. Mums the word.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Colin Whittaker on 16/08/2022 01:27:06:

How about? What about?

Whenever I see these two words I translate them to mean, OK I'm wrong but you have to prove you're not the same.

And the relevance of a historian to CO2's infra red absorption spectra is …….

Think Colin! Wise man and a fool. Mums the word.

History? That's living in the past that is. There's no future in that…

And what about the great physicist Richard Feynman who says there is an almost infinite number of pasts, as well as almost infinite number of futures, each with its own level of probability, and our current observations of the universe and all in it affect its past and determine the different histories of the universe? How about that then, eh?

Mum's the word indeed.

Edited By Hopper on 16/08/2022 09:22:39

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Posted by Hopper on 16/08/2022 09:07:54:

Posted by Colin Whittaker on 16/08/2022 01:27:06:

How about? What about?

snip

History? That's living in the past that is. There's no future in that…

And what about the great physicist Richard Feynman who says there is an almost infinite number of pasts, as well as almost infinite number of futures, each with its own level of probability, and our current observations of the universe and all in it affect its past and determine the different histories of the universe? How about that then, eh?

Mum's the word indeed.

Edited By Hopper on 16/08/2022 09:22:39

Hi Hopper, while there maybe no future living in the past, without the past there would be no future and our very existence has come about from the past. The future doesn't exist until it happens and before you can blink an eye, it becomes the past.

Regards Nick.

Edited By Nicholas Farr on 16/08/2022 10:01:56

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Nicholas Farr on 16/08/2022 10:00:17:

Posted by Hopper on 16/08/2022 09:07:54:

Posted by Colin Whittaker on 16/08/2022 01:27:06:

How about? What about?

snip

History? That's living in the past that is. There's no future in that…

And what about the great physicist Richard Feynman who says there is an almost infinite number of pasts, as well as almost infinite number of futures, each with its own level of probability, and our current observations of the universe and all in it affect its past and determine the different histories of the universe? How about that then, eh?

Mum's the word indeed.

Edited By Hopper on 16/08/2022 09:22:39

Hi Hopper, while there maybe no future living in the past, without the past there would be no future and our very existence has come about from the past. The future doesn't exist until it happens and before you can blink an eye, it becomes the past.

Regards Nick.

Edited By Nicholas Farr on 16/08/2022 10:01:56

Feynman's view is not so cut and dried nor so singularly linear. All possible pasts exist for him, with varying probabilities for each one. And our current observations change those pasts. Which of course can change our all possible futures with their own probabilities each. Sounds like science fiction but so far his quantum physics theories have passed every test via linear accelerators and particle colliders etc etc and can be shown to apply to larger bodies too. Which makes the Newtonian understanding we have of the universe and time via our five senses completely wrong, albeit a very useful tool for navigating our way through a reality that is completely different from the way we perceive it.

It does my head in. I am currently reading Stephen Hawking's book "The Grand Design" on the subject. Will report back when I achieve enlightenment.

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi Hopper, I agree that there is an infinite number of possibilities for the past, as an example, if neither of the two world wars didn't happen, as horrific they were, myself and my siblings would not have been born and the first world war was more important as my mother wasn't conceived until my grandfather came back from four years away while in the Royal Field Artillery. Feynman's view may well be valid, but not all theories result in reality. In my view, if all of the past that happened before I was conceived was different, I wouldn't be making this comment.

Regards Nick.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Robin on 16/08/2022 00:27:18:

Posted by Hopper on 15/08/2022 22:49:42:

On the other side, a rabble of armchair Google "researchers" with no training or expertise in the field at all plus a few opportunists feeding them what they want to hear for financial or political gain.

No argument. Just noise.

How about Historian David Starkey?

Is he an "armchair Google researcher"?

Probably. Mr Starkey has no scientific training or experience in this subject. I find his opinions interesting but he's an historian with provocative conservative political views described as 'the rudest man in Britain'. I'd say he's exactly the sort of unqualified chap who feeds folk what they want to hear for financial or political gain.

As he makes a good living by being controversial I suggest Mr Starkey's input to the climate debate is low-value. Opinion not backed by evidence has no place in a technical debate.

Dave

[Author]

Posts