Global Warming: For Experts Only

[fhl]

 

[yabz]

The full paper has been available for free if you click around you might find it.
I have probably linked to it here in the past. I read it.




1. conservation of mass is an amateur argument.
the earth absorbs co2, and there are articles showing it also off gases co2. We are far from a closed system.

2. The use of the differentiated time series is designed to show longer trends and eliminate the shorter term influence of seasonality.

Its well designed to pick up long term trends. Any seasoned trader knows that technique. The author of that critique obviously was throwing out buzzword without any comprehension.

3. CO2 has risen per data from mona loa.... Not sure how you could conclude natural co2 has not risen unless you disregard there are natural sinks and off gassing. I can show you charts showing the rise in co2 corresponds most closely with natural emissions and the human contribution does not.


here is more for your edification... we really don't have proof...


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-much-of-atmospheric-co2-increase-is-natural/7

As a first step, if we do simple correlations between the atmospheric CO2 variations with the other variables we find the highest correlation between temperature and CO2, and a little lower correlation with anthropogenic emissions:

Correlations with Yearly Atmospheric CO2 increases (1959-2012)
T_ocean : 0.70
T_land: 0.71
Fossil Fuels: 0.67
Ocean sink: 0.63
Land Use: -0.36

The fact that temperature has a higher correlation with yearly CO2 changes than does the anthropogenic source shows just how strongly the temperature variability affects atmospheric CO2 content.7
But correlating data with substantial trends in the data can be deceiving. Strictly speaking, all linear trends are perfectly correlated with each other, even those which have no causal relationship whatsoever between them.

So, we can detrend all of the data, and see what information is contained in the departures from the linear trends. This reduces the correlations substantially, since the variability associated with the trends has been removed:

Correlations with Yearly Atmospheric CO2 variations (1959-2012, detrended)
T_ocean : 0.35
T_land: 0.34
Fossil Fuels: 0.13
Ocean sink: 0.01
Land Use: 0.00

We see that the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature remains the strongest, but the fossil fuel signal is very small, possibly because the detrended variations in anthropogenic emissions are quite small, and so subject to greater errors.



more at link...

Its not clear how one can distinguish between natural and anthropogenic emissions. Animal agriculture, deforestation, desertification are all contributing to rising CO2 and are caused by humans. There is almost no part of the globe that is not affected by human activities. Fossil fuels are a relatively small component.

The website you link to questions the level of climate sensitivity. This is exactly the point I made earlier in this thread. The debate is all about λ not the actual equation itself. The basic science is not in question.

 

[jem]

We don't need to question the basic science to question whether man made co2 causes warming.
CO2 can warm... CO2 also cool per NASA.

see...

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

The question is does adding man made co2 cause warming.
we don't know... inter alia...

a. atmospheric co2 levels follow change in ocean temps. So the excess that added by man might be off gassed or absorbed

b. As you add more co2 to the atmosphere is loses its impact as a blanket logarithmically.
So at some point adding co2 and its start moving up in the atmosphere it may start acting as more of a shield than a blanket.


Finally I agree man could be causing warming.
Either by agriculture and bunching up in cities and eating meat or by changin the instrument readings. There is also a slight chance adding co2 might cause a very small amount of warming. I suspect sun the tides and the earth itself do most of the warming and cooling. CO2 is probably part of a feedback system.

Its not clear how one can distinguish between natural and anthropogenic emissions. Animal agriculture, deforestation, desertification are all contributing to rising CO2 and are caused by humans. There is almost no part of the globe that is not affected by human activities. Fossil fuels are a relatively small component.

The website you link to questions the level of climate sensitivity. This is exactly the point I made earlier in this thread. The debate is all about λ not the actual equation itself. The basic science is not in question.

 

[yabz]

We don't need to question the basic science to question whether man made co2 causes warming.
CO2 can warm... CO2 also cool per NASA.

see...

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

The question is does adding man made co2 cause warming.
we don't know... inter alia...

a. atmospheric co2 levels follow change in ocean temps. So the excess that added by man might be off gassed or absorbed

b. As you add more co2 to the atmosphere is loses its impact as a blanket logarithmically.
So at some point adding co2 and its start moving up in the atmosphere it may start acting as more of a shield than a blanket.


Finally I agree man could be causing warming.
Either by agriculture and bunching up in cities and eating meat or by changin the instrument readings. There is also a slight chance adding co2 might cause a very small amount of warming. I suspect sun the tides and the earth itself do most of the warming and cooling. CO2 is probably part of a feedback system.

If CO2 is a coolant then I would have to agree that anthropogenic global warming makes no sense. And, as you say, that article in NASA does say exactly that.

The best way to determine this is to do the experiment I suggested earlier in the thread with plastic bottles. I have to confess that I've never bothered to do it, but I will try it right now. Maybe you can do the same for independent verification.

 

[traderob]

If CO2 is a coolant then I would have to agree that anthropogenic global warming makes no sense. And, as you say, that article in NASA does say exactly that.

The best way to determine this is to do the experiment I suggested earlier in the thread with plastic bottles. I have to confess that I've never bothered to do it, but I will try it right now. Maybe you can do the same for independent verification.

How are you measuring the amount of CO2 in your bottle- to make sure you get roughly 400 parts /million only ? (0.04%)

 

[WeToddDid2]

If CO2 is a coolant then I would have to agree that anthropogenic global warming makes no sense. And, as you say, that article in NASA does say exactly that.

The best way to determine this is to do the experiment I suggested earlier in the thread with plastic bottles. I have to confess that I've never bothered to do it, but I will try it right now. Maybe you can do the same for independent verification.

What are you expecting a deeply flawed nonscientific experiment to prove?

 

[WeToddDid2]

If CO2 is a coolant then I would have to agree that anthropogenic global warming makes no sense. And, as you say, that article in NASA does say exactly that.

The best way to determine this is to do the experiment I suggested earlier in the thread with plastic bottles. I have to confess that I've never bothered to do it, but I will try it right now. Maybe you can do the same for independent verification.

At the following, you can find a well documented similar experiment.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate...ll-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

 

[futurecurrents]

We don't need to question the basic science to question whether man made co2 causes warming.
CO2 can warm... CO2 also cool per NASA.

see...

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

The question is does adding man made co2 cause warming.
we don't know... inter alia...

a. atmospheric co2 levels follow change in ocean temps. So the excess that added by man might be off gassed or absorbed

b. As you add more co2 to the atmosphere is loses its impact as a blanket logarithmically.
So at some point adding co2 and its start moving up in the atmosphere it may start acting as more of a shield than a blanket.


Finally I agree man could be causing warming.
Either by agriculture and bunching up in cities and eating meat or by changin the instrument readings. There is also a slight chance adding co2 might cause a very small amount of warming. I suspect sun the tides and the earth itself do most of the warming and cooling. CO2 is probably part of a feedback system.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You still seem to not understand what that means.

Or you do and you are just a deranged fucking POS liar.


I'm going with the latter.

 

[deltastrike]

@jem @yabz this article does a good job at explaining CO2's role at different levels in the atmosphere. The article jem posted was about CO2 in the thermosphere, not the troposphere. The important takeaway is that CO2's properties have different affects on the atmosphere at different altitudes.

 

[futurecurrents]

@jem @yabz this article does a good job at explaining CO2's role at different levels in the atmosphere. The article jem posted was about CO2 in the thermosphere, not the troposphere. The important takeaway is that CO2's properties have different affects on the atmosphere at different altitudes.

jerm knows that. He is not interested in the truth. No reason to be respectful of him. He's a fucking liar. The kind that defended big tobacco. The kind that will cost this earth dearly.