So temperature drives CO2 levels?
New Solar Cycle Prediction
- Thread starter Tempest
- Start date
- Status
Then there are these,
from here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and-temperature.html
Which is worth a read.
from here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and-temperature.html
Which is worth a read.
Again, temperature is driving carbon is it not? Your charts show no causation.
Indeed, from your link:
Quote:
This example demonstrates the error of drawing conclusions from one small piece of the puzzle without viewing the broader picture. If one focuses on just the last few years, one might erroneously conclude global warming has stopped. However, by looking at a longer data series, we see a climate that shows much short term variability. By understanding some of the mechanisms that cause climate variability, we can see that the current cooling is short term variation imposed on the long term warming trend.
So looking back 40 years is "long term" when it comes to issues of geologic time? That is
And why is it that carbon typically trails temperature by 800 years or so?
http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth
Indeed, from your link:
Quote:
This example demonstrates the error of drawing conclusions from one small piece of the puzzle without viewing the broader picture. If one focuses on just the last few years, one might erroneously conclude global warming has stopped. However, by looking at a longer data series, we see a climate that shows much short term variability. By understanding some of the mechanisms that cause climate variability, we can see that the current cooling is short term variation imposed on the long term warming trend.
So looking back 40 years is "long term" when it comes to issues of geologic time? That is
And why is it that carbon typically trails temperature by 800 years or so?
http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
Again, temperature is driving carbon is it not? Your charts show no causation.
How long do you think you can pump from two wells?
You first say that there's no correlation.
When correlation is shown .. you then say. "So? It doesn't show causation".
When that fails, you don't dispute the rise at all and fall back on "I'm simply not convinced man made".
This is better than watching a 3rd world negotiation in real time.
It's testimony to evasive maneuvers. Not effective combat technique.
Again, temperature is driving carbon is it not? Your charts show no causation.
How long do you think you can pump from two wells?
You first say that there's no correlation.
When correlation is shown .. you then say. "So? It doesn't show causation".
When that fails, you don't dispute the rise at all and fall back on "I'm simply not convinced man made".
This is better than watching a 3rd world negotiation in real time.
It's testimony to evasive maneuvers. Not effective combat technique.
The premise, Tempest, is that something--Milankovitch Cycles, orbital wobble, whatever, initiates a warming, which causes an increase in CO2, which amplifies the warming, and so on. I do wish you'd actually read.
You're almost like mechtech on evolution, just on different subjects.
You're almost like mechtech on evolution, just on different subjects.
Quote:
It's testimony to evasive maneuvers. Not effective combat technique.
It's simply using his own numbers and sources against him. As to the accuracy of the temperature (and maybe even CO2 levels), that is also very questionable as I have laid out before.
It's testimony to evasive maneuvers. Not effective combat technique.
It's simply using his own numbers and sources against him. As to the accuracy of the temperature (and maybe even CO2 levels), that is also very questionable as I have laid out before.
Quote:
Milankovitch Cycles, orbital wobble, whatever, initiates a warming, which causes an increase in CO2, which amplifies the warming, and so on.
So temperature DOES drive carbon?? And Milankovitch Cycles only matter because of the...Sun. But I thought you said the sun had very little impact on climate change?
But I have a problem with the most basic premise of this entire argument.
If you believe in AGW then we must have temperature variations beyond normal variability. You also have to have a base line temp...what temperature the earth is supposed to be.
Can someone tell me what temperature the earth is supposed be at and how much the normal variation is?
Milankovitch Cycles, orbital wobble, whatever, initiates a warming, which causes an increase in CO2, which amplifies the warming, and so on.
So temperature DOES drive carbon?? And Milankovitch Cycles only matter because of the...Sun. But I thought you said the sun had very little impact on climate change?
But I have a problem with the most basic premise of this entire argument.
If you believe in AGW then we must have temperature variations beyond normal variability. You also have to have a base line temp...what temperature the earth is supposed to be.
Can someone tell me what temperature the earth is supposed be at and how much the normal variation is?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
(sigh)
He seems unable to reason well.
Originally Posted By: MarkC
He seems unable to reason well.
Then please demonstrate how I am wrong. You said yourself that temp drives carbon, yet you say that I don't reason well.
T = X+Y+A
T= actual temp.
A= temp increase by man
X= base line "supposed to be temp."
Y= max. natural variation
If you cannot solve this very simple equation, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that man is creating warming.
After billions upon billions of research there is no way to answer this very simple equation?
If someone tells me a power plant's temp is rising and asks me if that is a problem, the first thing I would ask is "what temperature is it supposed to be"?
He seems unable to reason well.
Then please demonstrate how I am wrong. You said yourself that temp drives carbon, yet you say that I don't reason well.
T = X+Y+A
T= actual temp.
A= temp increase by man
X= base line "supposed to be temp."
Y= max. natural variation
If you cannot solve this very simple equation, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that man is creating warming.
After billions upon billions of research there is no way to answer this very simple equation?
If someone tells me a power plant's temp is rising and asks me if that is a problem, the first thing I would ask is "what temperature is it supposed to be"?
I did not in any way say that temps drive carbon.
And I have said more than once or twice, that man-made C)2 is causing warming, I have said it may very well be AMPLIFYING whatever natural warming may or may not be occurring. You really do have difficulty comprehending what you read, don't you?
And I have said more than once or twice, that man-made C)2 is causing warming, I have said it may very well be AMPLIFYING whatever natural warming may or may not be occurring. You really do have difficulty comprehending what you read, don't you?
You said warming is initiated by natural causes, and carbon is increased by that. And now you say that carbon MAY be amplifying natural warming??? You put up an awfully viamet defense and amount of information for may...
Are you not convinced yourself?
Can you answer my simple equation?
Are you not convinced yourself?
Can you answer my simple equation?
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: MarkC
He seems unable to reason well.
Then please demonstrate how I am wrong. You said yourself that temp drives carbon, yet you say that I don't reason well.
T = X+Y+A
T= actual temp.
A= temp increase by man
X= base line "supposed to be temp."
Y= max. natural variation
If you cannot solve this very simple equation, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that man is creating warming.
After billions upon billions of research there is no way to answer this very simple equation?
If someone tells me a power plant's temp is rising and asks me if that is a problem, the first thing I would ask is "what temperature is it supposed to be"?
I don't know about you... But after a night of heavy drinking and Taco-Bell I have some pretty warm emissions from where the sun don't shine. This "emission" has to be contributing to global warming because it isn't A/C coming out of there!
I don't even need millions of dollars or a fancy study to prove it either... About $60 at a bar and $15 at Taco-Bell and I can provoide all the proof that is needed!
Originally Posted By: MarkC
He seems unable to reason well.
Then please demonstrate how I am wrong. You said yourself that temp drives carbon, yet you say that I don't reason well.
T = X+Y+A
T= actual temp.
A= temp increase by man
X= base line "supposed to be temp."
Y= max. natural variation
If you cannot solve this very simple equation, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that man is creating warming.
After billions upon billions of research there is no way to answer this very simple equation?
If someone tells me a power plant's temp is rising and asks me if that is a problem, the first thing I would ask is "what temperature is it supposed to be"?
I don't know about you... But after a night of heavy drinking and Taco-Bell I have some pretty warm emissions from where the sun don't shine. This "emission" has to be contributing to global warming because it isn't A/C coming out of there!
I don't even need millions of dollars or a fancy study to prove it either... About $60 at a bar and $15 at Taco-Bell and I can provoide all the proof that is needed!
Tempest, read again what I wrote, and understand the words.
C02 is known to affect temperature, we throw tons of it into the atmosphere every year, which are not part of the natural cycle.
C02 is known to affect temperature, we throw tons of it into the atmosphere every year, which are not part of the natural cycle.
Quote:
we throw tons of it into the atmosphere every year
What is the temperature in C that man is contributing to warming?
we throw tons of it into the atmosphere every year
What is the temperature in C that man is contributing to warming?
You seem so enamored of geocraft.com and it's questionable and unverified tables, why don't you tell me the answer you want?
I don't care what your source is. I simply want to know the exact C that man is adding above natural variability.
With billion$ spent on computer models that tell us doomsday is on the way, is it really too much to ask?
With billion$ spent on computer models that tell us doomsday is on the way, is it really too much to ask?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
What would it matter? If it could be provided you would merely switch to something else and say that it was flawed.
You really have to promote the upsides of your agenda/beliefs. This needless waste of time with endless dodging and contradictions (as in saying whatever is required to contradict your opposition) doesn't serve you well.
I could sell your side. Really. I always see both sides to any debate while forming opinion. If I was hired to do so, I would effectively neutralize the opposition without looking like I was just trying to play some endless shell game of not getting pinned down. All you have to do is concede to the obvious.
I'd be saying "Go ahead and waste your time" and present practical views of how this would never be something that you would ever get an entire nation.. let alone and entire planet.. behind in altering ..even if you can definitively prove correlation and causation. It's like trying to save the whales or whatever. There's always going to be a Japan or whomever who is going to do as they please ..whatever..
..but, if you insist ...carry on.
You really have to promote the upsides of your agenda/beliefs. This needless waste of time with endless dodging and contradictions (as in saying whatever is required to contradict your opposition) doesn't serve you well.
I could sell your side. Really. I always see both sides to any debate while forming opinion. If I was hired to do so, I would effectively neutralize the opposition without looking like I was just trying to play some endless shell game of not getting pinned down. All you have to do is concede to the obvious.
I'd be saying "Go ahead and waste your time" and present practical views of how this would never be something that you would ever get an entire nation.. let alone and entire planet.. behind in altering ..even if you can definitively prove correlation and causation. It's like trying to save the whales or whatever. There's always going to be a Japan or whomever who is going to do as they please ..whatever..
..but, if you insist ...carry on.
So, we don't know what the temperature of the earth is supposed to be? If so, what is it? If not, Tempest has a point in that if we don't know the baseline temperature, how do we know that we are getting too warm, cold, whatever?
Originally Posted By: benjamming
So, we don't know what the temperature of the earth is supposed to be? If so, what is it? If not, Tempest has a point in that if we don't know the baseline temperature, how do we know that we are getting too warm, cold, whatever?
The meteorologists don't seem to know what it's going to be and just post a general c-rap shoot up on TV screen every night!
So, we don't know what the temperature of the earth is supposed to be? If so, what is it? If not, Tempest has a point in that if we don't know the baseline temperature, how do we know that we are getting too warm, cold, whatever?
The meteorologists don't seem to know what it's going to be and just post a general c-rap shoot up on TV screen every night!
- Status