Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[mikal83]

Gadgetmac said:

mikal83 said:

We however must cut back.

Yes, per person China are not the leading player.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Saturday 8th February 14:26

So if there was a country that had a population on 1 and that person drove a real old clanger around.........They are THE worst?

[robinessex]

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Well, I suppose plotting a graph backward had to occur sooner than later in my 50 years of looking at them. But as the graphs since this one don't show anything of any interest, back to it. The temperature seems to have stuck

This is your whole problem Rob, you shoot from the hip, you don’t draw your gun and aim. You were in such a rush to post that you looked at the pretty coloured lines and didn’t bother to read the data points laid out clearly in front of you. Off you went regardless of the evidence.

As for “nothing of any interest” please explain the temperature getting “stuck” (it’s actually rising even in the graphic you’ve posted) for the first time in half a million years whilst coincidently for the first time in half a million years co2 rises. Why is it not dipping again in-line with all of the previous cycles?

Again you are just not interested in seeing what is on display but would rather follow the pre-programming you have inflicted upon yourself.

I don’t know about “specsavers” but perhaps you might be forced to understand the graphics more if they were in braille format.

The CO2 going off the graph at the end, but the temperature isn't following. Why is it different from the graph you posted then?

Thats not even vaguely close to being an answer.

Why? Can't you supply one then?

[Gadgetmac]

mikal83 said:

Gadgetmac said:

mikal83 said:

We however must cut back.

Yes, per person China are not the leading player.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Saturday 8th February 14:26

So if there was a country that had a population on 1 and that person drove a real old clanger around.........They are THE worst?

You can only ever use per capita as a fair comparison.

As an analogy:

You as an individual cannot sit there burning a log fire to keep warm whilst telling your equivalent in China that he must only use a match - and so must all of the people around him as there are so many of them.

Don’t forget, you’ve also been burning your log fire for a bloody long time compared to him.

[Gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Well, I suppose plotting a graph backward had to occur sooner than later in my 50 years of looking at them. But as the graphs since this one don't show anything of any interest, back to it. The temperature seems to have stuck

This is your whole problem Rob, you shoot from the hip, you don’t draw your gun and aim. You were in such a rush to post that you looked at the pretty coloured lines and didn’t bother to read the data points laid out clearly in front of you. Off you went regardless of the evidence.

As for “nothing of any interest” please explain the temperature getting “stuck” (it’s actually rising even in the graphic you’ve posted) for the first time in half a million years whilst coincidently for the first time in half a million years co2 rises. Why is it not dipping again in-line with all of the previous cycles?

Again you are just not interested in seeing what is on display but would rather follow the pre-programming you have inflicted upon yourself.

I don’t know about “specsavers” but perhaps you might be forced to understand the graphics more if they were in braille format.

The CO2 going off the graph at the end, but the temperature isn't following. Why is it different from the graph you posted then?

Thats not even vaguely close to being an answer.

Why? Can't you supply one then?

Typical of you Rob.

Having been humbled, you are now desperately trying to out shout my question with one of your own.

Give me your explanation then I’ll answer you.

Stop panicking and start thinking

[Thorodin]

So every emergent nation (in the sense of technology) should have their fair chance at pollution like the rest of us?

[Gadgetmac]

Thorodin said:

So every emergent nation (in the sense of technology) should have their fair chance at pollution like the rest of us?

Really, that’s what you took from that? Rather than the cut backs should be (even if not completely then at least) more proportionate to the per capita output?

It’s a tough pill to swallow I’ll grant you.

[robinessex]

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Well, I suppose plotting a graph backward had to occur sooner than later in my 50 years of looking at them. But as the graphs since this one don't show anything of any interest, back to it. The temperature seems to have stuck

This is your whole problem Rob, you shoot from the hip, you don’t draw your gun and aim. You were in such a rush to post that you looked at the pretty coloured lines and didn’t bother to read the data points laid out clearly in front of you. Off you went regardless of the evidence.

As for “nothing of any interest” please explain the temperature getting “stuck” (it’s actually rising even in the graphic you’ve posted) for the first time in half a million years whilst coincidently for the first time in half a million years co2 rises. Why is it not dipping again in-line with all of the previous cycles?

Again you are just not interested in seeing what is on display but would rather follow the pre-programming you have inflicted upon yourself.

I don’t know about “specsavers” but perhaps you might be forced to understand the graphics more if they were in braille format.

The CO2 going off the graph at the end, but the temperature isn't following. Why is it different from the graph you posted then?

Thats not even vaguely close to being an answer.

Why? Can't you supply one then?

Typical of you Rob.

Having been humbled, you are now desperately trying to out shout my question with one of your own.

Give me your explanation then I’ll answer you.

Stop panicking and start thinking

I don't have one. I never claimed to have one. My graph is a riposte to your graph. You posted the original graph, with the estimated (guessed) temperature direction, I posted one that shows how it is. So you obviously think it yours shows something, so why so reluctant to tell us?

[Gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Well, I suppose plotting a graph backward had to occur sooner than later in my 50 years of looking at them. But as the graphs since this one don't show anything of any interest, back to it. The temperature seems to have stuck

This is your whole problem Rob, you shoot from the hip, you don’t draw your gun and aim. You were in such a rush to post that you looked at the pretty coloured lines and didn’t bother to read the data points laid out clearly in front of you. Off you went regardless of the evidence.

As for “nothing of any interest” please explain the temperature getting “stuck” (it’s actually rising even in the graphic you’ve posted) for the first time in half a million years whilst coincidently for the first time in half a million years co2 rises. Why is it not dipping again in-line with all of the previous cycles?

Again you are just not interested in seeing what is on display but would rather follow the pre-programming you have inflicted upon yourself.

I don’t know about “specsavers” but perhaps you might be forced to understand the graphics more if they were in braille format.

The CO2 going off the graph at the end, but the temperature isn't following. Why is it different from the graph you posted then?

Thats not even vaguely close to being an answer.

Why? Can't you supply one then?

Typical of you Rob.

Having been humbled, you are now desperately trying to out shout my question with one of your own.

Give me your explanation then I’ll answer you.

Stop panicking and start thinking

I don't have one. I never claimed to have one. My graph is a riposte to your graph. You posted the original graph, with the estimated (guessed) temperature direction, so you obviously think it shows something, so why so reluctant to tell us?

Good, just so we are clear about that.

And I have told “us” although I’m not sure who you think “us” includes.

My graph only ever purported to show the “expected” rise in temperatures if the correlation with the rising atmospheric co2 concentration remains.

It was clearly marked on the graph with the words “Expect Temps”

Do YOU have any reason as to why temps wouldn’t rise looking at the last 500,000 years shown in that data set from the Vostok Ice Core?

I’m signing out now as I have a function to attend this evening. I’ll log back in later/tomorrow in hope of seeing a clear reply to that question.

[Gadgetmac]

I’ve just remembered last nights David Baddiel stand up show I attended on the topic of Internet Trolls.

“Us” is the distress call of somebody needing like-minded people to come to their aid in a time of crisis on twitter.

Have a nice evening.

[robinessex]

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Well, I suppose plotting a graph backward had to occur sooner than later in my 50 years of looking at them. But as the graphs since this one don't show anything of any interest, back to it. The temperature seems to have stuck

This is your whole problem Rob, you shoot from the hip, you don’t draw your gun and aim. You were in such a rush to post that you looked at the pretty coloured lines and didn’t bother to read the data points laid out clearly in front of you. Off you went regardless of the evidence.

As for “nothing of any interest” please explain the temperature getting “stuck” (it’s actually rising even in the graphic you’ve posted) for the first time in half a million years whilst coincidently for the first time in half a million years co2 rises. Why is it not dipping again in-line with all of the previous cycles?

Again you are just not interested in seeing what is on display but would rather follow the pre-programming you have inflicted upon yourself.

I don’t know about “specsavers” but perhaps you might be forced to understand the graphics more if they were in braille format.

The CO2 going off the graph at the end, but the temperature isn't following. Why is it different from the graph you posted then?

Thats not even vaguely close to being an answer.

Why? Can't you supply one then?

Typical of you Rob.

Having been humbled, you are now desperately trying to out shout my question with one of your own.

Give me your explanation then I’ll answer you.

Stop panicking and start thinking

I don't have one. I never claimed to have one. My graph is a riposte to your graph. You posted the original graph, with the estimated (guessed) temperature direction, so you obviously think it shows something, so why so reluctant to tell us?

Good, just so we are clear about that.

And I have told “us” although I’m not sure who you think “us” includes.

My graph only ever purported to show the “expected” rise in temperatures if the correlation with the rising atmospheric co2 concentration remains.

It was clearly marked on the graph with the words “Expect Temps”

Do YOU have any reason as to why temps wouldn’t rise looking at the last 500,000 years shown in that data set from the Vostok Ice Core?

I’m signing out now as I have a function to attend this evening. I’ll log back in later/tomorrow in hope of seeing a clear reply to that question.

It seems to have settled at the same value as the previous 4 peaks and hasn't shown any significant rise for 10,000 years. Which is not what you're expecting, is it?

[kerplunk]

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Well, I suppose plotting a graph backward had to occur sooner than later in my 50 years of looking at them. But as the graphs since this one don't show anything of any interest, back to it. The temperature seems to have stuck

This is your whole problem Rob, you shoot from the hip, you don’t draw your gun and aim. You were in such a rush to post that you looked at the pretty coloured lines and didn’t bother to read the data points laid out clearly in front of you. Off you went regardless of the evidence.

As for “nothing of any interest” please explain the temperature getting “stuck” (it’s actually rising even in the graphic you’ve posted) for the first time in half a million years whilst coincidently for the first time in half a million years co2 rises. Why is it not dipping again in-line with all of the previous cycles?

Again you are just not interested in seeing what is on display but would rather follow the pre-programming you have inflicted upon yourself.

I don’t know about “specsavers” but perhaps you might be forced to understand the graphics more if they were in braille format.

The CO2 going off the graph at the end, but the temperature isn't following. Why is it different from the graph you posted then?

Thats not even vaguely close to being an answer.

Why? Can't you supply one then?

Typical of you Rob.

Having been humbled, you are now desperately trying to out shout my question with one of your own.

Give me your explanation then I’ll answer you.

Stop panicking and start thinking

I don't have one. I never claimed to have one. My graph is a riposte to your graph. You posted the original graph, with the estimated (guessed) temperature direction, so you obviously think it shows something, so why so reluctant to tell us?

Good, just so we are clear about that.

And I have told “us” although I’m not sure who you think “us” includes.

My graph only ever purported to show the “expected” rise in temperatures if the correlation with the rising atmospheric co2 concentration remains.

It was clearly marked on the graph with the words “Expect Temps”

Do YOU have any reason as to why temps wouldn’t rise looking at the last 500,000 years shown in that data set from the Vostok Ice Core?

I’m signing out now as I have a function to attend this evening. I’ll log back in later/tomorrow in hope of seeing a clear reply to that question.

Point of order here. The graph only shows there's a relationship between variables - it doesn't tell you the causal relationship.

Does temperature variation cause the CO2 variation, or does CO2 variation cause the temperature variation, or both?

The answer is both but that understanding doesn't come from the graph - it comes from understanding of the physical mechanisms involved.

So it's not valid to use the graph to ask what you would expect to happen to temperature due to the recent spike in CO2. We expect a temperature rise due to increasing CO2 because of the physical properties of CO2, not because of the vostock ice cores.

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 8th February 19:26

[Gadgetmac]

kerplunk said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Well, I suppose plotting a graph backward had to occur sooner than later in my 50 years of looking at them. But as the graphs since this one don't show anything of any interest, back to it. The temperature seems to have stuck

This is your whole problem Rob, you shoot from the hip, you don’t draw your gun and aim. You were in such a rush to post that you looked at the pretty coloured lines and didn’t bother to read the data points laid out clearly in front of you. Off you went regardless of the evidence.

As for “nothing of any interest” please explain the temperature getting “stuck” (it’s actually rising even in the graphic you’ve posted) for the first time in half a million years whilst coincidently for the first time in half a million years co2 rises. Why is it not dipping again in-line with all of the previous cycles?

Again you are just not interested in seeing what is on display but would rather follow the pre-programming you have inflicted upon yourself.

I don’t know about “specsavers” but perhaps you might be forced to understand the graphics more if they were in braille format.

The CO2 going off the graph at the end, but the temperature isn't following. Why is it different from the graph you posted then?

Thats not even vaguely close to being an answer.

Why? Can't you supply one then?

Typical of you Rob.

Having been humbled, you are now desperately trying to out shout my question with one of your own.

Give me your explanation then I’ll answer you.

Stop panicking and start thinking

I don't have one. I never claimed to have one. My graph is a riposte to your graph. You posted the original graph, with the estimated (guessed) temperature direction, so you obviously think it shows something, so why so reluctant to tell us?

Good, just so we are clear about that.

And I have told “us” although I’m not sure who you think “us” includes.

My graph only ever purported to show the “expected” rise in temperatures if the correlation with the rising atmospheric co2 concentration remains.

It was clearly marked on the graph with the words “Expect Temps”

Do YOU have any reason as to why temps wouldn’t rise looking at the last 500,000 years shown in that data set from the Vostok Ice Core?

I’m signing out now as I have a function to attend this evening. I’ll log back in later/tomorrow in hope of seeing a clear reply to that question.

Point of order here. The graph only shows there's a relationship between variables - it doesn't tell you the causal relationship.

Does temperature variation cause the CO2 variation, or does CO2 variation cause the temperature variation, or both?

The answer is both but that understanding doesn't come from the graph - it comes from understanding of the physical mechanisms involved.

So it's not valid to use the graph to ask waht you would expect to happen to temperature due to the recent spike in CO2. We expect a temperature rise due to increasing CO2 because of the physical properties of CO2, not because of the vostock ice cores.

Of course, we expect temps to rise because of rising co2 and no it doesn’t show causation - only correlation but that the correlation extends back half a million years if you are using the Vostok ice cores as your reference. Other sources may vary but I’ve homed in on this particular data set as it’s the one that was proffered as being a “nothing to see here” source. I’ve been careful not to draw the obvious “correlation does not equal causation” response in these exchanges.

[kerplunk]

Gadgetmac said:

kerplunk said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Well, I suppose plotting a graph backward had to occur sooner than later in my 50 years of looking at them. But as the graphs since this one don't show anything of any interest, back to it. The temperature seems to have stuck

This is your whole problem Rob, you shoot from the hip, you don’t draw your gun and aim. You were in such a rush to post that you looked at the pretty coloured lines and didn’t bother to read the data points laid out clearly in front of you. Off you went regardless of the evidence.

As for “nothing of any interest” please explain the temperature getting “stuck” (it’s actually rising even in the graphic you’ve posted) for the first time in half a million years whilst coincidently for the first time in half a million years co2 rises. Why is it not dipping again in-line with all of the previous cycles?

Again you are just not interested in seeing what is on display but would rather follow the pre-programming you have inflicted upon yourself.

I don’t know about “specsavers” but perhaps you might be forced to understand the graphics more if they were in braille format.

The CO2 going off the graph at the end, but the temperature isn't following. Why is it different from the graph you posted then?

Thats not even vaguely close to being an answer.

Why? Can't you supply one then?

Typical of you Rob.

Having been humbled, you are now desperately trying to out shout my question with one of your own.

Give me your explanation then I’ll answer you.

Stop panicking and start thinking

I don't have one. I never claimed to have one. My graph is a riposte to your graph. You posted the original graph, with the estimated (guessed) temperature direction, so you obviously think it shows something, so why so reluctant to tell us?

Good, just so we are clear about that.

And I have told “us” although I’m not sure who you think “us” includes.

My graph only ever purported to show the “expected” rise in temperatures if the correlation with the rising atmospheric co2 concentration remains.

It was clearly marked on the graph with the words “Expect Temps”

Do YOU have any reason as to why temps wouldn’t rise looking at the last 500,000 years shown in that data set from the Vostok Ice Core?

I’m signing out now as I have a function to attend this evening. I’ll log back in later/tomorrow in hope of seeing a clear reply to that question.

Point of order here. The graph only shows there's a relationship between variables - it doesn't tell you the causal relationship.

Does temperature variation cause the CO2 variation, or does CO2 variation cause the temperature variation, or both?

The answer is both but that understanding doesn't come from the graph - it comes from understanding of the physical mechanisms involved.

So it's not valid to use the graph to ask waht you would expect to happen to temperature due to the recent spike in CO2. We expect a temperature rise due to increasing CO2 because of the physical properties of CO2, not because of the vostock ice cores.

Of course, we expect temps to rise because of rising co2 and no it doesn’t show causation - only correlation but that the correlation extends back half a million years if you are using the Vostok ice cores as your reference. Other sources may vary but I’ve homed in on this particular data set as it’s the one that was proffered as being a “nothing to see here” source. I’ve been careful not to draw the obvious “correlation does not equal causation” response in these exchanges.

So why are you asking robinessex what he would expect to happen based on the vostock ice cores?

If someone denies the effect of increasing CO2 on temperature then the graph is no help because they can just point to the solubility of a gas with temperature and say that's all the graph shows - the graph can't be used to defeat that argument.

[Gadgetmac]

kerplunk said:

So why are you asking robinessex what he would expect to happen based on the vostock ice cores?

If someone denies the effect of increasing CO2 on temperature then the graph is no help because they can just point to the solubility of a gas with temperature and say that's all the graph shows - the graph can't be used to defeat that argument.

It was more a case of the graph shows rising co2 and the history of the core shows a relationship between co2 and temps so YOU (he) tell me why that wouldn't continue. He didn't. You did.

[dickymint]

Talking of 'points of order' where's the source, error bars and/or link of these graphs? Did I miss them?

[dickymint]

So could somebody post a link to the source of these Vostok and Law graphs please?

[kerplunk]

Gadgetmac said:

kerplunk said:

So why are you asking robinessex what he would expect to happen based on the vostock ice cores?

If someone denies the effect of increasing CO2 on temperature then the graph is no help because they can just point to the solubility of a gas with temperature and say that's all the graph shows - the graph can't be used to defeat that argument.

It was more a case of the graph shows rising co2 and the history of the core shows a relationship between co2 and temps so YOU (he) tell me why that wouldn't continue. He didn't. You did.

Happy to help You see people getting their knickers twisted about the ice core data all the time as though AGW stems from it, but the solubility of CO2 withe temperature and the greenhouse gas properties of CO2 were known about well before we had the ice core data - the ice core data is just confirmatory evidence in support of longstanding climate theory, not the stem.

[Gandahar]

Kawasicki said:

Gandahar said:

Considering this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-480...

I'm guessing this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51420681

Is not going to help matters.
It will be interesting to see how these birds cope in 2020 onwards as warming touches the outliers of their continent.

Edited by Gandahar on Friday 7th February 23:19

When I looked up both the Vostok and Law Dome ice core records I saw that periods of rapid temperature change are not in any way unusual in that region.

Why are you looking up Vostok and Law Dome ice cores from a site at far higher altitude over a 1000 km away from where these penguins breed on sea ice ?

Is that the sound of desperation ?

[Gandahar]

dickymint said:

So could somebody post a link to the source of these Vostok and Law graphs please?

I doubt they can, but it's irrelevant any how to my original post of sea ice disruption and the effects on penguins as global warming is for the first time seeming to be able to penetrate the Antarctic.

[kerplunk]

Gandahar said:

Kawasicki said:

Gandahar said:

Considering this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-480...

I'm guessing this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51420681

Is not going to help matters.
It will be interesting to see how these birds cope in 2020 onwards as warming touches the outliers of their continent.

Edited by Gandahar on Friday 7th February 23:19

When I looked up both the Vostok and Law Dome ice core records I saw that periods of rapid temperature change are not in any way unusual in that region.

Why are you looking up Vostok and Law Dome ice cores from a site at far higher altitude over a 1000 km away from where these penguins breed on sea ice ?

Is that the sound of desperation ?

Ice core isoptope data is a proxy for regional sea temperature so that's fair enough I think. The claim that it's not unusual probably merits closer scrutiny.