30+ Years After Claiming That CO2 Was The 'Control Knob' For Planetary Temperatures It's Still M.I.A.

[Sunsettommy]

When will warmist/alarmists finally concede that CO2 doesn't do much of anything?

C3Headlines

30+ Years After Claiming That CO2 Was The 'Control Knob' For Planetary Temperatures It's Still M.I.A.

January 22, 2020

Excerpt:

Over the last three decades, advocates of climate change alarmism have claimed that the trace greenhouse gas CO2 is the rapid global warming control knob that humans can use to tweak the world's climate, thus allowing for a deceleration of the supposed "harmful" warming.

But after some 30+ years, the empirical evidence for that claim still remains missing in action (M.I.A.).

The adjacent chart of lower atmosphere temperature trend plots and atmospheric CO2's constant growth completely refutes the concept that warming rates (acceleration/deceleration) can be controlled by a magical bureaucrat's CO2 knob.

LINK

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Vostok ice cores show CO2 LAGGING temperatures by 800 to 1,000 years on both increases and decreases, that's the OPPOSITE of a temperature control knob

 

[Yarddog]

When will warmist/alarmists finally concede that CO2 doesn't do much of anything?

C3Headlines

30+ Years After Claiming That CO2 Was The 'Control Knob' For Planetary Temperatures It's Still M.I.A.

January 22, 2020

Excerpt:


View attachment 334567

Over the last three decades, advocates of climate change alarmism have claimed that the trace greenhouse gas CO2 is the rapid global warming control knob that humans can use to tweak the world's climate, thus allowing for a deceleration of the supposed "harmful" warming.

But after some 30+ years, the empirical evidence for that claim still remains missing in action (M.I.A.).

The adjacent chart of lower atmosphere temperature trend plots and atmospheric CO2's constant growth completely refutes the concept that warming rates (acceleration/deceleration) can be controlled by a magical bureaucrat's CO2 knob.

LINK

It wasnt so much a Control Knob as it was a CASH OUT button for AL GORE. CO2 has made him a very happy and wealthy man.

 

[MisterBeale]

The Common Roots Of Climate Change And COVID-19 Hysteria

The Common Roots Of Climate Change And COVID-19 Hysteria

People want to know: just how bad is the COVID-19 virus and is fighting it worth the destruction of the world’s economic and financial system while disrupting the lives of hundreds of millions of people? The story behind the story will make it clear that things are seldom as they seem.

www.technocracy.news

 

[ReinyDays]

The moving averages are fully contaminated by ongoing dynamic processes ... weather goes up and down ... the OP's graph isn't about climate ...

I sure don't remember any 85ºC days in October 1997 ... nor the -80ºC days in April of 1999 ...

Just take regular averages for the two periods 1880-1949 and 1950-2019 ... see, perfect correlation ... flip a coin twice and half the time we see the same perfect correlation ... cool, eh? ...

Causation remains theoretical ...

 

[mamooth]

Interesting way to lie with statistics. I can't figure out that initial graph is supposed to be showing. It looks like some random sinusoids were plotted. Just what are "plotted per century temperature trends"?

If an honest person wanted to see whether CO2 is correlated with temperature, they'd compare CO2 and temperature and look for a correaltion. That positive correlation is blindingly obvious.

Tommy's heroes didn't do that. They engaged in some statistical contortions to mask the actual data signal. Only dishonest psuedoscience cranks do that kind of thing.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Interesting way to lie with statistics. I can't figure out that initial graph is supposed to be showing. It looks like some random sinusoids were plotted. Just what are "plotted per century temperature trends"?

If an honest person wanted to see whether CO2 is correlated with temperature, they'd compare CO2 and temperature and look for a correaltion. That positive correlation is blindingly obvious.

Tommy's heroes didn't do that. They engaged in some statistical contortions to mask the actual data signal. Only dishonest psuedoscience cranks do that kind of thing.

Notice that this fella doesn't understand the chart, he admits it! But then accuse it as a lie:

"Interesting way to lie with statistics. I can't figure out that initial graph is supposed to be showing."

He goes on to make a truly embarrassing statement:

It looks like some random sinusoids were plotted. Just what are "plotted per century temperature trends"?

He doesn't read well, since the LINK explains it clearly:

"The pale yellow boxes near the bottom of the chart the relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and the various plotted per century temperature trends. Those correlations barely climb out of the basement, with two even exhibiting a negative correlation."

===

Meanwhile your chart doesn't even show a mathematical relationship at all, it is a straightforward visual cue to fool the illiterate like you. In reality we see significant temperature swings over time while CO2 hardly change at all, just goes up at a nearly steady rate.

 

[mamooth]

Notice that this fella doesn't understand the chart, he admits it! But then accuse it as a lie:

It's obviously a lie, as it shows no long term positive temperature trends since 1979, even though we're in the middle of a big long term positive temperature trend.

And now I see where the lie came from. The graph cherrypicks the most fudgy parts of the UAH dataset, which is known for its wild cold bias. It's a standard denier fraud tactic, picking a garbage data set while denying that accurate data even exists.

Meanwhile your chart doesn't even show a mathematical relationship at all, it is a straightforward visual cue to fool the illiterate like you.

And there you go again with your "BELIEVE MY FUZZY DISHONEST BAD MATH INSTEAD OF YOUR OWN LYING EYES!" thing.

With non-fudged data sets, everyone can clearly see and recognize the very obvious positive correlation between CO2 and temperature.

You see it as well, and then you choose to lie about it, which destroys the last of your credibility. If you're willing to lie that brazenly about something that everyone can clearly see, what won't you lie about?

Answer: nothing. Experience demonstrates how every single thing you say should initially be considered to be a lie, unless independent evidence shows otherwise.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You stated this:

"I can't figure out that initial graph is supposed to be showing."

Which most people would think you do NOT understand it, just as I stated:

"Notice that this fella doesn't understand the chart, he admits it!"

You are so bad at this....

===

Meanwhile you were shown this:

"The pale yellow boxes near the bottom of the chart the relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and the various plotted per century temperature trends. Those correlations barely climb out of the basement, with two even exhibiting a negative correlation."

You still don't understand it 2 days later..., let me help you:

Look at the 1998 massive El-Nino year of 1997-1998, notice that Temperature went up long before CO2 went up, CO2 changes AFTER Temperature does, it is a stark example showing that CO2 isn't driving temperature change, it is REACTING to it months later...

That is the point he is making, even when using a variable set of CO2 changes from 12 to 240 month changes, they always show a lagging response, hence it can't be a climate driver.

===

Meanwhile you haven't noticed what it says at the bottom of the article, because you don't read them, which is why your chronic inability to undestand them is made clear in your silly replies.

"Note: Excel was used to average the monthly global temperatures from the UAH and RSS satellite datasets; Excel was used to calculate the per century trends in the plots; Excel was used to plot the atmospheric CO2 levels from this dataset; Excel used to chart all data and to calculate the moving per century slope trends."

This is why you couldn't understand the chart.

Your own chart has no demonstrated statistical relationship at all, you don't even supply the link to it or show the alleged relationship mathematically.

Epic Fail!

 

[Deleted member 73486]

Interesting way to lie with statistics. I can't figure out that initial graph is supposed to be showing. It looks like some random sinusoids were plotted. Just what are "plotted per century temperature trends"?

If an honest person wanted to see whether CO2 is correlated with temperature, they'd compare CO2 and temperature and look for a correaltion. That positive correlation is blindingly obvious.

Tommy's heroes didn't do that. They engaged in some statistical contortions to mask the actual data signal. Only dishonest psuedoscience cranks do that kind of thing.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good lie! Of course there is strong statistical correlation between the two. Only a nonscientific, uniformed nincompoop would say otherwise. Of course, that is the average Trumpster!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Interesting way to lie with statistics. I can't figure out that initial graph is supposed to be showing. It looks like some random sinusoids were plotted. Just what are "plotted per century temperature trends"?

If an honest person wanted to see whether CO2 is correlated with temperature, they'd compare CO2 and temperature and look for a correaltion. That positive correlation is blindingly obvious.

Tommy's heroes didn't do that. They engaged in some statistical contortions to mask the actual data signal. Only dishonest psuedoscience cranks do that kind of thing.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good lie! Of course there is strong statistical correlation between the two. Only a nonscientific, uniformed nincompoop would say otherwise. Of course, that is the average Trumpster!

Your fact free/evidence free comment is dead on arrival.

Congratulations!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Interesting way to lie with statistics. I can't figure out that initial graph is supposed to be showing. It looks like some random sinusoids were plotted. Just what are "plotted per century temperature trends"?

If an honest person wanted to see whether CO2 is correlated with temperature, they'd compare CO2 and temperature and look for a correaltion. That positive correlation is blindingly obvious.

Tommy's heroes didn't do that. They engaged in some statistical contortions to mask the actual data signal. Only dishonest psuedoscience cranks do that kind of thing.

Does your chart count the warming trapped in the deep ocean in 1880?

 

[mamooth]

You stated this:

"I can't figure out that initial graph is supposed to be showing."

And now I do. It wasn't easy, given how deliberately confusing the graph was.

Anyways, what's the point of the power-pouting? Oh, that's right. You needed an excuse to deflect.

You still don't understand it 2 days later..., let me help you:

I showed that I clearly understand exactly how you're choosing to lie. You're using the faked and fudgy UAH data, while pretending that the good data doesn't exist. Using data that's known to be wrong and discarding the good data is a standard technique of fraudsters like you.

it is a stark example showing that CO2 isn't driving temperature change, it is REACTING to it months later...

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ...

Kindly explain your magic fantasy physics to everyone. Where is the CO2 coming from? This should be hilarious.

Meanwhile you haven't noticed what it says at the bottom of the article,

I specifically stated he used the fudgy UAH data, so now you look even crazier.

Your own chart has no demonstrated statistical relationship at all,

So, you're an imbecile.

Non-morons know that if two curves follow each other closely, they're highly correlated.

You? You're babbling that no, you have to run a mathematical analysis before you can show they're correlated. Only an imbecile would say something that stupid, given how the Mk. 1 eyeball is very capable of spotting correlations, especially ones as obvious as the CO2-temperature correlation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Interesting way to lie with statistics. I can't figure out that initial graph is supposed to be showing. It looks like some random sinusoids were plotted. Just what are "plotted per century temperature trends"?

If an honest person wanted to see whether CO2 is correlated with temperature, they'd compare CO2 and temperature and look for a correaltion. That positive correlation is blindingly obvious.

Tommy's heroes didn't do that. They engaged in some statistical contortions to mask the actual data signal. Only dishonest psuedoscience cranks do that kind of thing.

We have several hundred thousand years of data set side by side temperature and CO2 showing that CO2 LAGS temperature on increase and decrease. You have a phony, fraud "heat trapped in the deep ocean" rounding error.

 

[mamooth]

We have several hundred thousand years of data set side by side temperature and CO2 showing that CO2 LAGS temperature on increase and decrease.

And?

Oh, I see. You're making the same idiot logical error that you always make, by claiming that the present has to behave exactly like the past, even though circumstances are now wildly different.

An average third-grader can see the problem with your logic, but you can't.

Why your logic is faulty has been explained to you in small words over and over, yet you still insist on engaging in the same logical faceplant over and over.

Are you really that incapable of learning, or are you deliberately humiliating yourself just to earn brownie points with the cult?

And why do you keep crying senselessly about the deep oceans? What exactly about the data has set you off into these endless weeping fits? It's not our fault that the hard data triggers you, so stop crying at us over it. Go cry at your masters, because they're the ones who fed you crap and then left you twisting in the wind.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We have several hundred thousand years of data set side by side temperature and CO2 showing that CO2 LAGS temperature on increase and decrease.

And?

Oh, I see. You're making the same idiot logical error that you always make, by claiming that the present has to behave exactly like the past, even though circumstances are now wildly different.

An average third-grader can see the problem with your logic, but you can't.

Why your logic is faulty has been explained to you in small words over and over, yet you still insist on engaging in the same logical faceplant over and over.

Are you really that incapable of learning, or are you deliberately humiliating yourself just to earn brownie points with the cult?

And why do you keep crying senselessly about the deep oceans? What exactly about the data has set you off into these endless weeping fits? It's not our fault that the hard data triggers you, so stop crying at us over it. Go cry at your masters, because they're the ones who fed you crap and then left you twisting in the wind.

Is modern CO2 different?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We have several hundred thousand years of data set side by side temperature and CO2 showing that CO2 LAGS temperature on increase and decrease.

And?

Oh, I see. You're making the same idiot logical error that you always make, by claiming that the present has to behave exactly like the past, even though circumstances are now wildly different.

An average third-grader can see the problem with your logic, but you can't.

Why your logic is faulty has been explained to you in small words over and over, yet you still insist on engaging in the same logical faceplant over and over.

Are you really that incapable of learning, or are you deliberately humiliating yourself just to earn brownie points with the cult?

And why do you keep crying senselessly about the deep oceans? What exactly about the data has set you off into these endless weeping fits? It's not our fault that the hard data triggers you, so stop crying at us over it. Go cry at your masters, because they're the ones who fed you crap and then left you twisting in the wind.

How does atmospheric CO2 heat the "deep oceans"? BISS!

"To date, the ocean has taken up more than 90% of the excess heat in the climate system."

Choices made now are critical for the future of our ocean and cryosphere — IPCC

 

[mamooth]

Is modern CO2 different?

Can you clarify that remark? Are you trying to say the CO2 is the only thing affecting climate?

You seem to worship CO2 like it was your deity, being that you give it absolute powers. That's just weird.

 

[mamooth]

How does atmospheric CO2 heat the "deep oceans"? BISS!

By heating the shallow oceans first.

Which word there was too hard for you to understand?

This is very basic stuff. Why does it give you such trouble?

 

[MisterBeale]

The Common Roots Of Climate Change And COVID-19 Hysteria

The Common Roots Of Climate Change And COVID-19 Hysteria

People want to know: just how bad is the COVID-19 virus and is fighting it worth the destruction of the world’s economic and financial system while disrupting the lives of hundreds of millions of people? The story behind the story will make it clear that things are seldom as they seem.

www.technocracy.news

. . . and if you needed any more evidence that the two issues are manufactured globalists hoaxes?

What makes Greta an expert on viruses? How the hell did the globalists decide she needed to comment on this?

Are CNN viewer this gullible? Seriously?

Let me tell you, with the amount of research on all sides of this issue? I am more of an "expert" on this virus than dear Greta is. I could give folks more truth than this little girl could.

Greta Thunberg added to CNN’s expert coronavirus panel, Twitter erupts

Greta Thunberg added to CNN’s expert coronavirus panel, Twitter erupts

She’s no Doogie Howser, M.D.

nypost.com