Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[durbster]

robinessex said:

mike9009 said:

How wonderfully irrelevant. Please can you colour in the graph and show the years where humans have existed on the planet.

Why humans? Any animal will do. Dinasors inhabited Earth for 165,000,00 years when the CO2 level was between 4000-6000 ppm. Why do we have a problem now with CO2 circa 400 ppm?

Nicely timed proof that robinessex has never spent a single moment learning about historical climate. Thanks for proving my point.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

robinessex said:

mike9009 said:

How wonderfully irrelevant. Please can you colour in the graph and show the years where humans have existed on the planet.

A carbon dioxide theory should explain all observations over various timescales, not those you or anyone else cherry picks to include or exclude, and as robinessex pointed out, CO2 can't do the job. To do the job, reject the already discredited CO2 dominance idea, as many and increasing numbers of peer-reviewed papers have done particularly 2018-2024.

Back to the graphical presentation of historical data as posted by robinessex.

OK, let's talk about robinessex graph. Again.

Although robinessex posts that graph every few months, he doesn't actually know anything about it. He clearly has no interest finding out where it's from or what it shows, so I guess he just did a google image search and found a picture he mistakenly thought told him the story he wanted to believe.

It's actually based on research by Prof Christopher Scotese and he studies historic climatic conditions. He's got a [url=https://www.youtube.com/user/cscotese]YouTube channel[/youtube] where he talks about that stuff.

Obviously a man very well placed to understand modern climate in the context of Earth's history.

And while robinessex and turbobloke want you to believe their made-up interpretation of the graph, the bloke who actually studies the field, did the work, published the research and made the graph, says otherwise:

Here are his thoughts on climate change:

Prof Scotese said:

...if Nature has its way, the Earth will slip back again into the grips of another major Ice Age and frigid landscapes will once again expand outward from the poles. But Nature may not have its way. Things have changed. We have changed things. The addition of CO2 to the atmosphere during the last 200 years of human industry has amplified this natural warming trend and the average global temperature has risen rapidly.
... This rate of warming is 50 times faster than what occurred during the previous 21,000 years.

Source

I've presented this to robinessex previously and inevitably he simply ignored it. He ignore it again, so you can expect to see him posting it again in a couple of months.

Right. Now explain the glaringly obvious in that graph. CO2 and Planet temperature seem to be completely unrelated.

[mike9009]

durbster said:

Source

I've presented this to robinessex previously and inevitably he simply ignored it. He ignore it again, so you can expect to see him posting it again in a couple of months.

Thanks for trying. Unfortunately the incorrect personal interpretation of the jpeg will mean your explanation will be gleefully ignored again.

Shame, the authors interpretation of his own research is ignorantly waived away.

Editted because I was unkind to another poster, who doesn't really understand.....

Edited by mike9009 on Thursday 28th November 19:38

[mike9009]

robinessex said:

Why humans? Any animal will do. Dinasors inhabited Earth for 165,000,00 years when the CO2 level was between 4000-6000 ppm. Why do we have a problem now with CO2 circa 400 ppm?

Perhaps because humans aren't dinosaurs?? Sorry, if I missed your point.

Why is there largely no dinosaur fossils around the equator? Hint - it might be related to the temperature.....

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2015/06/16-clim...

...and just to help further, dinosaurs did not have air-conditioning either.......

Edited by mike9009 on Thursday 28th November 19:57

[durbster]

robinessex said:

Right. Now explain the glaringly obvious in that graph. CO2 and Planet temperature seem to be completely unrelated.

The explanation is that you found a picture on the internet, wrongly inferred whatever you wanted from it, and never gave it any more thought. It really is as simple as that.

Did you check the source of the graph? Did you look at the research it's from? Did you look up the author's credentials? Of course you didn't.

[robinessex]

mike9009 said:

Sorry, if I missed your point.

You did, you always do. I don't know if you've noticed, but these days we don't have any dinosaurs anywhere on the planet now.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

Right. Now explain the glaringly obvious in that graph. CO2 and Planet temperature seem to be completely unrelated.

The explanation is that you found a picture on the internet, wrongly inferred whatever you wanted from it, and never gave it any more thought. It really is as simple as that.

Did you check the source of the graph? Did you look at the research it's from? Did you look up the author's credentials? Of course you didn't.

Try answering the question instead of your usual swerve around a point you're stuck on. Again. If it's so simple how come you keep not seeing that it only contains one significant point, that CO2 doesn't follow the planet's bloody temperature? The research and the author's credentials are irrelevant TO THAT PARTICULAR GRAPH. Look at the bottom LH corner.

[mike9009]

robinessex said:

mike9009 said:

Sorry, if I missed your point.

You did, you always do. I don't know if you've noticed, but these days we don't have any dinosaurs anywhere on the planet now.

Just reread what you put. Then try reading my reply in context of what you wrote.

You do realise that different species thrive in different climates. Perhaps that is why dinosaurs thrived at 1500ppm Co2 and humans have generally only thrived at a much lower Co2 concentrations.

You are just here to wind up or truly should not join in the discussion, if basics cannot be understood. Or learnt from....

Edited by mike9009 on Thursday 28th November 21:38

[hairykrishna]

Personally I prefer my graphs to at least have axes.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

Nelson and Nelson (2024) in "Decoupling CO2 from Climate Change" added to the now significant number of papers demonstrating the inability of carbon dioxide to have any significant let alone dangerous effect on temperature. Our political policy is years out of date, but that's inertia in cult politics for you.

Links given already in this thread.

And yet again another paper theorising that everything is linked to cloud cover. Yet, as any problem solving expert (or scientist) should know, ....you don't stop at the first 'why' in root cause analysis.

So why is cloud cover decreasing? A simple Google search brings up a few reasons. (Ps it is not linked to cosmic rays)

https://www.mpg.de/6337430/carbon-dioxide-climate-...

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-clouds-are-the-...

https://www.carbonbrief.org/extreme-co2-levels-cou...

Unlike Nelson this was predicted over a decade before he managed to jump on the same old bandwagon as the others.



Anyway, I thought the CO2 rise was not induced by human activity anyway. At least that is what you have quoted previously. 37.8 billion tonnes of CO2 simply disappeared last year, did it?

Anyway at least our petrol prices will reduce as OPEc countries squabble over a diminishing market.

[durbster]

robinessex said:

durbster said:

robinessex said:

Right. Now explain the glaringly obvious in that graph. CO2 and Planet temperature seem to be completely unrelated.

The explanation is that you found a picture on the internet, wrongly inferred whatever you wanted from it, and never gave it any more thought. It really is as simple as that.

Did you check the source of the graph? Did you look at the research it's from? Did you look up the author's credentials? Of course you didn't.

Try answering the question instead of your usual swerve around a point you're stuck on. Again. If it's so simple how come you keep not seeing that it only contains one significant point, that CO2 doesn't follow the planet's bloody temperature? The research and the author's credentials are irrelevant TO THAT PARTICULAR GRAPH. Look at the bottom LH corner.

That's clearly a no and therefore, as I said, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It really is as simple as you found a picture on the internet that you mistakenly believed provided your confirmation bias, and that was that. Brain shut down. No further thought required. Faith intact.

I don't know why you constantly ask questions when you're impervious to the answers. I mean, I could give you a clue - e.g. the atmosphere is not made entirely of CO2 - but it's pointless; you're never going to open your mind to reason.

And then of course, as mike9009 said, you have the problem that this graph is made entirely of concepts you reject - models, proxies, averages, statistics, probability etc.

I really do find it reassuring you're on anti-science side of the debate robinessex. I've had my periodic reminder that attempting to educate you is pointless, so I'll go back to ignoring you again.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

durbster said:

robinessex said:

Right. Now explain the glaringly obvious in that graph. CO2 and Planet temperature seem to be completely unrelated.

The explanation is that you found a picture on the internet, wrongly inferred whatever you wanted from it, and never gave it any more thought. It really is as simple as that.

Did you check the source of the graph? Did you look at the research it's from? Did you look up the author's credentials? Of course you didn't.

Try answering the question instead of your usual swerve around a point you're stuck on. Again. If it's so simple how come you keep not seeing that it only contains one significant point, that CO2 doesn't follow the planet's bloody temperature? The research and the author's credentials are irrelevant TO THAT PARTICULAR GRAPH. Look at the bottom LH corner.

That's clearly a no and therefore, as I said, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It really is as simple as you found a picture on the internet that you mistakenly believed provided your confirmation bias, and that was that. Brain shut down. No further thought required. Faith intact.

I don't know why you constantly ask questions when you're impervious to the answers. I mean, I could give you a clue - e.g. the atmosphere is not made entirely of CO2 - but it's pointless; you're never going to open your mind to reason.

And then of course, as mike9009 said, you have the problem that this graph is made entirely of concepts you reject - models, proxies, averages, statistics, probability etc.

I really do find it reassuring you're on anti-science side of the debate robinessex. I've had my periodic reminder that attempting to educate you is pointless, so I'll go back to ignoring you again.

My 2 grandchildren are doing their A-level Maths. They saw the same interpretation OF THAT GRAPH as me instantly. So did their school tutor. I've been ignoring your belief dogma since I've been here.

[kerplunk]

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

Nelson and Nelson (2024) in "Decoupling CO2 from Climate Change" added to the now significant number of papers demonstrating the inability of carbon dioxide to have any significant let alone dangerous effect on temperature. Our political policy is years out of date, but that's inertia in cult politics for you.

Links given already in this thread.

And yet again another paper theorising that everything is linked to cloud cover. Yet, as any problem solving expert (or scientist) should know, ....you don't stop at the first 'why' in root cause analysis.

I like the wiggle analysis section where they examine the temperature/CO2 ice core data for the last 1 million (800k) years and conclude:

"The 1-million-year curve in Figure 3 revealed that the temperatures fluctuated up and down repeatedly over the entire period, while the CO 2 appeared to be remarkably constant."

So they've managed to undetect probably the most iconic correlation in climate science:

[durbster]

robinessex said:

My 2 grandchildren are doing their A-level Maths. They saw the same interpretation OF THAT GRAPH as me instantly. So did their school tutor. I've been ignoring your belief dogma since I've been here.

And to no surprise, he still doesn't understand.

One more attempt.

I am not disputing the lack of correlation on the graph (I assumed that was obvious, but apparently not). What I'm saying is this does not prove that there is no relationship between CO2 and temperature, as you mistakenly believe it does. As the bloke who made the graph explained, there is undoubtedly a correlation between CO2 and temperature.

The bit you seem unaware of that CO2 is one of many factors that affect the temperature, and a relatively small one at that. You seem to think a Stegosaurus was breathing the exact same air as we are, but that's not true. The Earth and its atmosphere have changed over the period covered by the graph; CO2 is not the only variable. There was much less oxygen in the air, for example.

I also note you aren't prepared to explain why you're happy with a graph made entirely of concepts that you normally reject. It says a lot.

I realise it's futile trying and educate somebody so far out that they'll argue that dry things don't catch fire more easily; gravity isn't predictable; the mathematical concept of average isn't valid; and that statistics and probability is no better than "guessing", but this thread is already ridiculous so here we are.

[dickymint]

durbster said:

.............. so I'll go back to ignoring you again.

[mike9009]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

My 2 grandchildren are doing their A-level Maths. They saw the same interpretation OF THAT GRAPH as me instantly. So did their school tutor. I've been ignoring your belief dogma since I've been here.

And to no surprise, he still doesn't understand.

One more attempt.

I am not disputing the lack of correlation on the graph (I assumed that was obvious, but apparently not). What I'm saying is this does not prove that there is no relationship between CO2 and temperature, as you mistakenly believe it does. As the bloke who made the graph explained, there is undoubtedly a correlation between CO2 and temperature.

The bit you seem unaware of that CO2 is one of many factors that affect the temperature, and a relatively small one at that. You seem to think a Stegosaurus was breathing the exact same air as we are, but that's not true. The Earth and its atmosphere have changed over the period covered by the graph; CO2 is not the only variable. There was much less oxygen in the air, for example.

I also note you aren't prepared to explain why you're happy with a graph made entirely of concepts that you normally reject. It says a lot.

I realise it's futile trying and educate somebody so far out that they'll argue that dry things don't catch fire more easily; gravity isn't predictable; the mathematical concept of average isn't valid; and that statistics and probability is no better than "guessing", but this thread is already ridiculous so here we are.

.....and wildfires never existed before humans..... despite some pretty strong evidence to the contrary. But personal belief is far more entrenched than scientific basis and evidence.....

[dickymint]

mike9009 said:

.....and wildfires never existed before humans..... despite some pretty strong evidence to the contrary. But personal belief is far more entrenched than scientific basis and evidence.....

Who on Earth ever said that and a

[turbobloke]

dickymint said:

mike9009 said:

.....and wildfires never existed before humans..... despite some pretty strong evidence to the contrary. But personal belief is far more entrenched than scientific basis and evidence.....

Who on Earth ever said that and a

Quite. Wildfires were common, as now, caused by e.g. lightning strikes (same as Canada these days) and magma flows (same as some parts of Hawaii these days).

Wildfires have been decreasing in frequency and intensity globally overall for a century, regionally there's been one exception iirc where carelessness / accidents and arson were increasing for a while. As tax gas has been increasing for a century, causality to CO2 is awol.
This is reflected in 93yrs USA data

Total annual global emissions from wildfires, encompassing frequency and intensity, has in particular been decreasing overall across the last two decades, also with CO2 increasing (obviously).
Copernicus eu data

Somewhat sensibly, for a change, the IPCC has not detected or attributed fire occurrence or area burned to what they call human-caused climate change. (AR6 wg1 ch12).

In spite of the data, our currently overheating political climate gives rise to this kind of thing.
Click

[robinessex]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

My 2 grandchildren are doing their A-level Maths. They saw the same interpretation OF THAT GRAPH as me instantly. So did their school tutor. I've been ignoring your belief dogma since I've been here.

And to no surprise, he still doesn't understand.

One more attempt.

I am not disputing the lack of correlation on the graph (I assumed that was obvious, but apparently not). What I'm saying is this does not prove that there is no relationship between CO2 and temperature, as you mistakenly believe it does. As the bloke who made the graph explained, there is undoubtedly a correlation between CO2 and temperature.

The bit you seem unaware of that CO2 is one of many factors that affect the temperature, and a relatively small one at that. You seem to think a Stegosaurus was breathing the exact same air as we are, but that's not true. The Earth and its atmosphere have changed over the period covered by the graph; CO2 is not the only variable. There was much less oxygen in the air, for example.

I also note you aren't prepared to explain why you're happy with a graph made entirely of concepts that you normally reject. It says a lot.

I realise it's futile trying and educate somebody so far out that they'll argue that dry things don't catch fire more easily; gravity isn't predictable; the mathematical concept of average isn't valid; and that statistics and probability is no better than "guessing", but this thread is already ridiculous so here we are.

In my 60 years of work in engineering analysis, I've probably produced more graphs than you've had dinners. They serve two purposes, both Visual. One shows a trend, the other is to visibly show any correlation between signals, especially for those without any mathematical skills to understand the numbers. That graph depicts two signals, CO2 and Planet temperature. They don't need any other mathematical tweaking or consideration, they stand up in their own right. Otherwise, they're not worth making in the first place.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

I realise it's futile trying and educate somebody so far out that they'll argue that dry things don't catch fire more easily; gravity isn't predictable; the mathematical concept of average isn't valid; and that statistics and probability is no better than "guessing", but this thread is already ridiculous so here we are.

A perfect example of Durbs reiterating/bending what someone has said and then claiming they have a complete misunderstanding of the subject:-

....................they'll argue that dry things don't catch fire more easily.........................

bks Durb. I've said many times that wet timber won't ignite, the moisture content needs to be 15%-20%, timber needs to be heated to 250 degrees C to ignite, 95% of 'wildfires' are directly blamed on human action.