Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[plunker]

PRTVR said:

jshell said:

But given that temperature and CO2 levels don't correlate, are you saying that doesn't matter?

I have always followed the idea of correlation doesn't equate to cause for CO2, surely I can't just give up on that idea when a theory comes along that is more to my liking, should I now embrace correlation/ causation or should I question it?

Bless, the causation in this case would be pretty straightforward - if it were real

[PRTVR]

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

jshell said:

But given that temperature and CO2 levels don't correlate, are you saying that doesn't matter?

I have always followed the idea of correlation doesn't equate to cause for CO2, surely I can't just give up on that idea when a theory comes along that is more to my liking, should I now embrace correlation/ causation or should I question it?

Bless, the causation in this case would be pretty straightforward - if it were real

What like the CO2 temperature correlation is false

[jshell]

PRTVR said:

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

jshell said:

But given that temperature and CO2 levels don't correlate, are you saying that doesn't matter?

I have always followed the idea of correlation doesn't equate to cause for CO2, surely I can't just give up on that idea when a theory comes along that is more to my liking, should I now embrace correlation/ causation or should I question it?

Bless, the causation in this case would be pretty straightforward - if it were real

What like the CO2 temperature correlation is false

[plunker]

PRTVR said:

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

jshell said:

But given that temperature and CO2 levels don't correlate, are you saying that doesn't matter?

I have always followed the idea of correlation doesn't equate to cause for CO2, surely I can't just give up on that idea when a theory comes along that is more to my liking, should I now embrace correlation/ causation or should I question it?

Bless, the causation in this case would be pretty straightforward - if it were real

What like the CO2 temperature correlation is false

Well for sure if you're unconvinced by energy-in from the sun affecting temperature you're hardly likely to go for any of that CO2 stuff are you - you're unconvincable of anything

[PRTVR]

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

jshell said:

But given that temperature and CO2 levels don't correlate, are you saying that doesn't matter?

I have always followed the idea of correlation doesn't equate to cause for CO2, surely I can't just give up on that idea when a theory comes along that is more to my liking, should I now embrace correlation/ causation or should I question it?

Bless, the causation in this case would be pretty straightforward - if it were real

What like the CO2 temperature correlation is false

Well for sure if you're unconvinced by energy-in from the sun affecting temperature you're hardly likely to go for any of that CO2 stuff are you - you're unconvincable of anything

You are the one calling the sun's effect into question, I was just questioning the results of data in a chaotic system with so many variables.

[plunker]

PRTVR said:

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

jshell said:

But given that temperature and CO2 levels don't correlate, are you saying that doesn't matter?

I have always followed the idea of correlation doesn't equate to cause for CO2, surely I can't just give up on that idea when a theory comes along that is more to my liking, should I now embrace correlation/ causation or should I question it?

Bless, the causation in this case would be pretty straightforward - if it were real

What like the CO2 temperature correlation is false

Well for sure if you're unconvinced by energy-in from the sun affecting temperature you're hardly likely to go for any of that CO2 stuff are you - you're unconvincable of anything

You are the one calling the sun's effect into question, I was just questioning the results of data in a chaotic system with so many variables.

If the purported solar TSI/temperature correlation was real there would be little to debate - it's the sun what done it. But good for you for trying to be a good sceptic I guess

[PRTVR]

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

jshell said:

But given that temperature and CO2 levels don't correlate, are you saying that doesn't matter?

I have always followed the idea of correlation doesn't equate to cause for CO2, surely I can't just give up on that idea when a theory comes along that is more to my liking, should I now embrace correlation/ causation or should I question it?

Bless, the causation in this case would be pretty straightforward - if it were real

What like the CO2 temperature correlation is false

Well for sure if you're unconvinced by energy-in from the sun affecting temperature you're hardly likely to go for any of that CO2 stuff are you - you're unconvincable of anything

You are the one calling the sun's effect into question, I was just questioning the results of data in a chaotic system with so many variables.

If the purported solar TSI/temperature correlation was real there would be little to debate - it's the sun what done it. But good for you for trying to be a good sceptic I guess

Good sceptic ? Everybody should be sceptic, sceptic when Microsoft calls you to tell you you have a virus on your computer, sceptic when somebody reportedly from your bank phones you and tells you your accounts being hacked and they need your passwords,

You are a sceptic, look at your post above, you think climate change is more lightly due to variables in solar output than a small change in a trace gas.

[plunker]

PRTVR said:

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

jshell said:

But given that temperature and CO2 levels don't correlate, are you saying that doesn't matter?

I have always followed the idea of correlation doesn't equate to cause for CO2, surely I can't just give up on that idea when a theory comes along that is more to my liking, should I now embrace correlation/ causation or should I question it?

Bless, the causation in this case would be pretty straightforward - if it were real

What like the CO2 temperature correlation is false

Well for sure if you're unconvinced by energy-in from the sun affecting temperature you're hardly likely to go for any of that CO2 stuff are you - you're unconvincable of anything

You are the one calling the sun's effect into question, I was just questioning the results of data in a chaotic system with so many variables.

If the purported solar TSI/temperature correlation was real there would be little to debate - it's the sun what done it. But good for you for trying to be a good sceptic I guess

Good sceptic ? Everybody should be sceptic, sceptic when Microsoft calls you to tell you you have a virus on your computer, sceptic when somebody reportedly from your bank phones you and tells you your accounts being hacked and they need your passwords,

You are a sceptic, look at your post above, you think climate change is more lightly due to variables in solar output than a small change in a trace gas.

No you've somehow completely misunderstood. We're BOTH sceptical that solar TSI variabilty is responsible for recent climate changes but for different reasons - you because 'correlation doesn't equal causation' and me because I think the correlation claim itself is unsound.

I agree everyone should be a sceptic, but there's good and bad, valid and invalid etc.

[Halb]

plunker said:

No you've somehow completely misunderstood. We're BOTH sceptical that solar TSI variabilty is responsible for recent climate changes but for different reasons - you because 'correlation doesn't equal causation' and me because I think the correlation claim itself is unsound.

I agree everyone should be a sceptic, but there's good and bad, valid and invalid etc.

Do you believe that change in the climate is attributable to human endeavours?

[plunker]

Halb said:

plunker said:

No you've somehow completely misunderstood. We're BOTH sceptical that solar TSI variabilty is responsible for recent climate changes but for different reasons - you because 'correlation doesn't equal causation' and me because I think the correlation claim itself is unsound.

I agree everyone should be a sceptic, but there's good and bad, valid and invalid etc.

Do you believe that change in the climate is attributable to human endeavours?

Yeah I think it's attributable to humans to some degree.

[Halb]

plunker said:

Yeah I think it's attributable to humans to some degree.

With c02? And how much of a degree?

[robinessex]

Halb said:

plunker said:

Yeah I think it's attributable to humans to some degree.

With c02? And how much of a degree?

0.000000000000028% when I last checked !!!!!!!!!!

[plunker]

Halb said:

plunker said:

Yeah I think it's attributable to humans to some degree.

With c02? And how much of a degree?

Yes sure with CO2 - have you heard of the greenhouse effect? Increasing the optical thickness of the atmosphere is likely to have an effect don't you think? If not why not? A doubling of CO2 is thought to create a TOA radiative imbalance of 3.7W/m2.

You're going to ask me to PROVE IT next aren't you

[Halb]

plunker said:

Halb said:

plunker said:

Yeah I think it's attributable to humans to some degree.

With c02? And how much of a degree?

Yes sure with CO2 - have you heard of the greenhouse effect? Increasing the optical thickness of the atmosphere is likely to have an effect don't you think? If not why not? A doubling of CO2 is thought to create a TOA radiative imbalance of 3.7W/m2.

You're going to ask me to PROVE IT next aren't you

I think I used to believe that the global warming was real, though I never really thought about it, maybe I just leaned towards that way. Now after reading more about it, I lean towards CO2 not having an effect. I dropped out of these threads years ago because I got tired of the crazy.
Increasing the thickness of the atmosphere sounds like it would have an effect. If that is what has happened.

[Jinx]

plunker said:

Yes sure with CO2 - have you heard of the greenhouse effect? Increasing the optical thickness of the atmosphere is likely to have an effect don't you think? If not why not? A doubling of CO2 is thought to create a TOA radiative imbalance of 3.7W/m2.

You're going to ask me to PROVE IT next aren't you

This is a water planet. The Greenhouse effect is an affect of H2O. It is a molecule that exists in all three states simultaneously. Any change in the total thermal profile of the earth system as a whole would be reflected in the ratio of these states. Add more energy change the ratio. This is done without any effect on the absolute temperature of the earth. The surface of the earth will have a thermal profile that is dependent on this ratio (due to being caught in the middle of the states) but also bounded by it - hence the relatively narrow band of surface temperatures (compared with planets without an atmosphere and those without an H2O dominated one) .
There is no evidence that CO2 effects temperatures at the surface (or at any altitude where water is present) . It has been conjecture followed by post hoc data torture to even suggest that it might. At altitudes without H2O then CO2 does have a known and provable effect - one of cooling.

[durbster]

Sea levels are rising at their fastest rate in 2000 years
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/sea-levels-...

Reading this got me wondering how they actually measure sea levels, as I couldn't think of a reliable method in my head. There's quite a lot to it but the data there is seems to be reliable:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/tide-gauge-se...

[robinessex]

durbster said:

Sea levels are rising at their fastest rate in 2000 years
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/sea-levels-...

Reading this got me wondering how they actually measure sea levels, as I couldn't think of a reliable method in my head. There's quite a lot to it but the data there is seems to be reliable:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/tide-gauge-se...

So they went through 6M years of 'data' ? Nope, they guestimated and estimated it. Complete bks then.

[jshell]

Can I just ask the AGW believers what they think of this, and if it affects their stance: http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf?r...

[durbster]

jshell said:

Can I just ask the AGW believers what they think of this, and if it affects their stance: http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf?r...

I've just had a quick look and I think it's very good.

Primarily I hope it serves to demonstrate that the science is healthy, that science journals are still reporting critically, and that scientists are more than happy to challenge the IPCC when necessary, and get that work funded and published. All these things couldn't happen in the world of PH, as they're all lost, broken or corrupted.

It also makes the point that warming has not "stopped" at all, as is repeatedly asserted on these threads. Perhaps it'll finally put that misinformation to bed.

Out of interest, why do you think it would it affect my stance?

Edited by durbster on Tuesday 1st March 13:52

[zbc]

I like it too. Clearly the science isn't completely settled. I don't think anyone claims that it is, there is more and more to learn and it's great that scientists continue to challenge this established thinking.