Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

Jazzy Jag said:

I'm still waiting.....

Why?

Optimist

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Er no... seeing correlation where none exists is not scientific, it’s odd. Then using this non-existent correlation to determine causation is just sad.

Er looks quite well correlated to climate change (temps) to me.

Priceless - just had a shufty at the source of the ice extent graph (Connolly 2017):

ABSTRACT
A new seasonal and annual dataset describing Arctic sea ice extents for 1901–2015 was constructed by individually re-calibrating sea ice data sources from the three Arctic regions (NorthAmerican, Nordic and Siberian) using the corresponding surface air temperature trends for thepre-satellite era (1901–1978), so that the strong relationship between seasonal sea ice extent andsurface air temperature observed for the satellite era (1979-present) also applies to the pre-satellite era.

...

Unsurprising then that the graph correlates well with temps seeing as they used temperature obs to construct the graph!

In the pre satellite era, what would you use to get an estimate for ice extent?

Are you questioning peer reviewed science? Tut, tut.

Er no. I questioned your assertion that a sea ice extent/climate change correlation is non-existent and then pointed out the graph you posted was constucted on the basis that a sea ice extent/climate change correlation exists.

So, what would you use to get an estimate for ice extent?

I don't have 'go to' source for pre satellite era off hand.

So my assertion, that you questioned, was that no correlation exists between sea ice extent and CO2.

Do you still question this? If so, can you please show me the data that shows correlation.

No I snipped the emissions graph and made no comment on your causation tangent. You replied to a post about arctic sea-ice being a bellwether for *climate change* and did a good impression of disagreeing with that notion, at the same time as posting a graph of sea-ice extent that appears to (inverse) correlate with the temperature record quite well - I pointed out that incongruity to you, but it seems to have only caused you confusion.

I'll comment on the causation tangent now if you like - the correlation there isn't terrible either over the period of concern (ie the post-war emissions boom).

On what data do you base your assertion that the post war correlation isn’t terrible? It looks pretty dire to me.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

On what data do you base your assertion that the post war correlation isn’t terrible? It looks pretty dire to me.

I'm just eye-balling the graphs you posted. For the most part, while CO2 is shooting up, sea-ice is heading down. Similar to the temperature record (but inverted obviously!):

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 25th September 09:59

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

I'm just eye-balling the graphs you posted. For the most part, while CO2 is shooting up, sea-ice is heading down. Similar to the temperature record:

So many places on that graph where temperature trend diverged from CO2 trend. Temperature has El Niño step changes which unless you have some knowledge as yet unpublished doesn't have any CO2 cause? Oh and shooting up - on that scale? Where's the H2O amplification required for all the CAGW bad things to happen - the temp increases are closer to just CO2 acting alone?

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

So many places on that graph where temperature trend diverged from CO2 trend.

Yes especially in the early part of the record where no strong claim for CO2 causation is made. Do we need to go over what the AGW claim IS again?

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

Yes especially in the early part of the record where no strong claim for CO2 causation is made. Do we need to go over what the AGW claim IS again?

You posted the graph again

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

Yes especially in the early part of the record where no strong claim for CO2 causation is made. Do we need to go over what the AGW claim IS again?

You posted the graph again

Exactly - the AGW claim is neatly summed up in the graph.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

On what data do you base your assertion that the post war correlation isn’t terrible? It looks pretty dire to me.

I'm just eye-balling the graphs you posted. For the most part, while CO2 is shooting up, sea-ice is heading down. Similar to the temperature record (but inverted obviously!):

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 25th September 09:59

Er, no, for 30 years sea ice increased despite CO2 increasing. Then the ice cover decreased over the next 30 years by about the amount it had increased. So in 60 odd years of increasing CO2, no trend.

Where do you see a post war correlation?

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

Er, no, for 30 years sea ice increased despite CO2 increasing. Then the ice cover decreased over the next 30 years by about the amount it had increased. So in 60 odd years of increasing CO2, no trend.

Where do you see a post war correlation?

Post-war I'm seeing ice growth to about 1970 (~25 years) followed by decline to 2015 (~45 years) - similar pattern to the temperature record.

[mko9]

kerplunk said:

I'm just eye-balling the graphs you posted. For the most part, while CO2 is shooting up, sea-ice is heading down. Similar to the temperature record (but inverted obviously!):

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 25th September 09:59

Any graph showing plots of two data sets with different scales on either side is complete BS, and has no business in a science thread. Why is the scale for CO2 260 to 420, not 0 to 500, or 200 to 500, or 150 to 750? Why is the temperature anomaly -0.4 to 1.2, rather than -0.5 to 1.5, or -2.0 to 2.0? Both of those scales have been deliberately chosen so that the two data sets overlay each other, in order to create the illusion of causation. That is not science.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Er, no, for 30 years sea ice increased despite CO2 increasing. Then the ice cover decreased over the next 30 years by about the amount it had increased. So in 60 odd years of increasing CO2, no trend.

Where do you see a post war correlation?

Post-war I'm seeing ice growth to about 1970 (~25 years) followed by decline to 2015 (~45 years) - similar pattern to the temperature record.

And the correlation between CO2 and ice Cover?

[kerplunk]

mko9 said:

kerplunk said:

I'm just eye-balling the graphs you posted. For the most part, while CO2 is shooting up, sea-ice is heading down. Similar to the temperature record (but inverted obviously!):

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 25th September 09:59

Any graph showing plots of two data sets with different scales on either side is complete BS, and has no business in a science thread. Why is the scale for CO2 260 to 420, not 0 to 500, or 200 to 500, or 150 to 750? Why is the temperature anomaly -0.4 to 1.2, rather than -0.5 to 1.5, or -2.0 to 2.0? Both of those scales have been deliberately chosen so that the two data sets overlay each other, in order to create the illusion of causation. That is not science.

So what you're saying is we shouldn't be having this whole conversation about correlations, or if wo do have a conversation about it the data should be presented on seperate graphs with a choice of scaling that makes it difficult to see what any party in the conversation is trying to convey. The whole purpose of a graph is a visualize aid to convey information or 'an hypothesis' to the reader. The primary (school) thing to remember is correlation doesn't prove causation - if you understand basics like that then there is no 'illusion of causation'. If you don't understand basics like that, well that's your dumb problem.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Er, no, for 30 years sea ice increased despite CO2 increasing. Then the ice cover decreased over the next 30 years by about the amount it had increased. So in 60 odd years of increasing CO2, no trend.

Where do you see a post war correlation?

Post-war I'm seeing ice growth to about 1970 (~25 years) followed by decline to 2015 (~45 years) - similar pattern to the temperature record.

And the correlation between CO2 and ice Cover?

I don't think CO2 affects ice cover - I think it affects temperature.

edit - we're going around in circles here and I'm getting bored. I answered your question already above:

"For the most part, while CO2 is shooting up, sea-ice is heading down".

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 26th September 11:22

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 26th September 11:36

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Er, no, for 30 years sea ice increased despite CO2 increasing. Then the ice cover decreased over the next 30 years by about the amount it had increased. So in 60 odd years of increasing CO2, no trend.

Where do you see a post war correlation?

Post-war I'm seeing ice growth to about 1970 (~25 years) followed by decline to 2015 (~45 years) - similar pattern to the temperature record.

And the correlation between CO2 and ice Cover?

I don't think CO2 affects ice cover - I think it affects temperature.

Or temperature affects CO2, outgassing of the oceans as the temperature rises.

[kerplunk]

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Er, no, for 30 years sea ice increased despite CO2 increasing. Then the ice cover decreased over the next 30 years by about the amount it had increased. So in 60 odd years of increasing CO2, no trend.

Where do you see a post war correlation?

Post-war I'm seeing ice growth to about 1970 (~25 years) followed by decline to 2015 (~45 years) - similar pattern to the temperature record.

And the correlation between CO2 and ice Cover?

I don't think CO2 affects ice cover - I think it affects temperature.

Or temperature affects CO2, outgassing of the oceans as the temperature rises.

Yes i think that's also true (not "or").

[mko9]

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

kerplunk said:

I'm just eye-balling the graphs you posted. For the most part, while CO2 is shooting up, sea-ice is heading down. Similar to the temperature record (but inverted obviously!):

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 25th September 09:59

Any graph showing plots of two data sets with different scales on either side is complete BS, and has no business in a science thread. Why is the scale for CO2 260 to 420, not 0 to 500, or 200 to 500, or 150 to 750? Why is the temperature anomaly -0.4 to 1.2, rather than -0.5 to 1.5, or -2.0 to 2.0? Both of those scales have been deliberately chosen so that the two data sets overlay each other, in order to create the illusion of causation. That is not science.

So what you're saying is we shouldn't be having this whole conversation about correlations, or if wo do have a conversation about it the data should be presented on seperate graphs with a choice of scaling that makes it difficult to see what any party in the conversation is trying to convey. The whole purpose of a graph is a visualize aid to convey information or 'an hypothesis' to the reader. The primary (school) thing to remember is correlation doesn't prove causation - if you understand basics like that then there is no 'illusion of causation'. If you don't understand basics like that, well that's your dumb problem.

Ah, so what you're saying (see what I did there?) is that there is a direct correlation between temperature anomaly and CO2 levels. According to that graph, every 20ppm rise in CO2 levels results in a .2C rinse in global average surface temperature. Please show the science behind that.

[kerplunk]

mko9 said:

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

kerplunk said:

I'm just eye-balling the graphs you posted. For the most part, while CO2 is shooting up, sea-ice is heading down. Similar to the temperature record (but inverted obviously!):

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 25th September 09:59

Any graph showing plots of two data sets with different scales on either side is complete BS, and has no business in a science thread. Why is the scale for CO2 260 to 420, not 0 to 500, or 200 to 500, or 150 to 750? Why is the temperature anomaly -0.4 to 1.2, rather than -0.5 to 1.5, or -2.0 to 2.0? Both of those scales have been deliberately chosen so that the two data sets overlay each other, in order to create the illusion of causation. That is not science.

So what you're saying is we shouldn't be having this whole conversation about correlations, or if wo do have a conversation about it the data should be presented on seperate graphs with a choice of scaling that makes it difficult to see what any party in the conversation is trying to convey. The whole purpose of a graph is a visualize aid to convey information or 'an hypothesis' to the reader. The primary (school) thing to remember is correlation doesn't prove causation - if you understand basics like that then there is no 'illusion of causation'. If you don't understand basics like that, well that's your dumb problem.

Ah, so what you're saying (see what I did there?) is that there is a direct correlation between temperature anomaly and CO2 levels. According to that graph, every 20ppm rise in CO2 levels results in a .2C rinse in global average surface temperature. Please show the science behind that.

Now you're getting it - correlation on it's own doesn't prove anything does it. You need a physical basis to connect the data. For that see IPCC reports etc. I don't have time to educate you futher right now

Funnily enough 0.2C/20ppm would give a sensitivity to a CO2 doubling of not far off 3C - the oft quoted middle figure for climate sensitivity to increasing CO2. You've just gone and justified the choice of scaling with a scientific basis (albeit a modelled one). Well done you

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 26th September 12:56

[mko9]

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

kerplunk said:

I'm just eye-balling the graphs you posted. For the most part, while CO2 is shooting up, sea-ice is heading down. Similar to the temperature record (but inverted obviously!):

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 25th September 09:59

Any graph showing plots of two data sets with different scales on either side is complete BS, and has no business in a science thread. Why is the scale for CO2 260 to 420, not 0 to 500, or 200 to 500, or 150 to 750? Why is the temperature anomaly -0.4 to 1.2, rather than -0.5 to 1.5, or -2.0 to 2.0? Both of those scales have been deliberately chosen so that the two data sets overlay each other, in order to create the illusion of causation. That is not science.

So what you're saying is we shouldn't be having this whole conversation about correlations, or if wo do have a conversation about it the data should be presented on seperate graphs with a choice of scaling that makes it difficult to see what any party in the conversation is trying to convey. The whole purpose of a graph is a visualize aid to convey information or 'an hypothesis' to the reader. The primary (school) thing to remember is correlation doesn't prove causation - if you understand basics like that then there is no 'illusion of causation'. If you don't understand basics like that, well that's your dumb problem.

Ah, so what you're saying (see what I did there?) is that there is a direct correlation between temperature anomaly and CO2 levels. According to that graph, every 20ppm rise in CO2 levels results in a .2C rinse in global average surface temperature. Please show the science behind that.

Now you're getting it - correlation on it's own doesn't prove anything does it. You need a physical basis to connect the data. For that see IPCC reports etc. I don't have time to educate you futher right now

Funnily enough 0.2C/20ppm would give a sensitivity to a CO2 doubling of not far off 3C - the oft quoted middle figure for climate sensitivity to increasing CO2. You've just gone and justified the choice of scaling with a scientific basis (albeit a modelled one). Well done you

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 26th September 12:56

So what your saying is that chart is the entire basis for global warming? Simply creating a chart with two different data sets with two different scales in such a way that the data overlays, creating the illusion of correlation? That is the entirety of the science?

Again, that is not science, that is powerpoint geekery.

[kerplunk]

Something tells me you're not sincere mk09, but in reply - no the graph just sums up the IPCC assessment that most, if not all of the warming since 1950 is man-made.

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

Something tells me you're not sincere mk09, but in reply - no the graph just sums up the IPCC assessment that most, if not all of the warming since 1950 is man-made.

Which tells you more about the IPCC than it does the science.