Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?

[Crick]

Because the warming trend will turn into a cooling trend soon enough.

No, he didn't say that. I really think you need to engage the man. I think you may have the needed touch to get through to him with some needed rationality.

 

[ding]

No, he didn't say that. I really think you need to engage the man. I think you may have the needed touch to get through to him with some needed rationality.

I couldn’t care less.

 

[EMH]

You consistently post blatantly obvious falsehoods and have resisted all calls for supporting links. That makes you a TROLL.

There is nothing false about the post.

The post simply outs you and your fraud as laughable.

 

[Crick]

There is nothing false about the post.

The post simply outs you and your fraud as laughable.

TROLL

 

[EMH]

Because the warming trend will turn into a cooling trend soon enough.

If oceans were warming, there would be more and bigger canes...

Not happening.

Accepting crick's parroted taxpayer funded fudge is your first error.

Outside of the surface of growing urban area there is no warming.


Crick and his fraud used to endlessly bawk about melting arctic sea ice. Since that ice grew back from undersea volcanic eruptions in 2005 and 2007, crick and his fraud can longer bawk lies about it.

Now, overfishing is because of the fraud....


Wake up.

They have NOTHING

 

[EMH]

TROLL

The post clearly documents that you

DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE BASIC EM SPECTRUM

 

[ReinyDays]

Same arguments ... why do you never learn? ... Lying again Chick? ...

One of your links regarding correlation says this: "Atmospheric CO2 concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T proxies over the last 425 million years" ...

You didn't read this scientific paper ... because it completely confirms what all of us have been telling you all these years ... you just can't stop your lies, can you? ... but thank you for the link, I'll be rubbing your nose in it every time you say "correlation" ...

 

[Crick]

Same arguments ... why do you never learn? ... Lying again Chick? ...

One of your links regarding correlation says this: "Atmospheric CO2 concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T proxies over the last 425 million years" ...

You didn't read this scientific paper ... because it completely confirms what all of us have been telling you all these years ... you just can't stop your lies, can you? ... but thank you for the link, I'll be rubbing your nose in it every time you say "correlation" ...

"Linearly-detrended T-proxies over the last 425 million years"??? Do you actually think that obscure little line at the far extremes of the discussion (whose source you failed to identify) overwhelms the correlation data I displayed and to which I linked in post #915?

I'm sorry, but that is absolutely pathetic desperation. But you feel free to call that back up every time we speak.

 

[ReinyDays]

"Linearly-detrended T-proxies over the last 425 million years"??? Do you actually think that obscure little line at the far extremes of the discussion (whose source you failed to identify) overwhelms the correlation data I displayed and to which I linked in post #915?

I'm sorry, but that is absolutely pathetic desperation. But you feel free to call that back up every time we speak.

Stupid motherfucker ...

In the conclusion:

"The principal findings of this study are that neither the atmospheric concentration of CO2 nor
∆RFCO2 is correlated with T over most of the ancient (Phanerozoic) climate. Over all major climate
transitions of the Phanerozoic Eon, about three-quarters of 136 correlation coefficients computed here
between T and atmospheric CO2 concentration, and between T and ∆RFCO2, are non-discernible, and
about half of the discernible correlations are negative"

YOU'RE WRONG ... LIAR ... that's not correlation ... read the goddam paper asshole ... again, thank you for this link ... Davis 2017 ... you're going to be hearing a lot about this paper in the future ... you should definitely take the time to read it with comprehension ...

 

[Crick]

Stupid motherfucker ...

In the conclusion:

"The principal findings of this study are that neither the atmospheric concentration of CO2 nor
∆RFCO2 is correlated with T over most of the ancient (Phanerozoic) climate. Over all major climate
transitions of the Phanerozoic Eon, about three-quarters of 136 correlation coefficients computed here
between T and atmospheric CO2 concentration, and between T and ∆RFCO2, are non-discernible, and
about half of the discernible correlations are negative"

YOU'RE WRONG ... LIAR ... that's not correlation ... read the goddam paper asshole ... again, thank you for this link ... Davis 2017 ... you're going to be hearing a lot about this paper in the future ... you should definitely take the time to read it with comprehension ...

You're missing the most important term in your quote: "discernible". And you still haven't provided a link.

 

[jc456]

Scholarly articles about the correlation between CO2 and temperature.

On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature

We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.16.8370

https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/climate/climate-05-00076/article_deploy/climate-05-00076.pdf

Graphs of CO2 and temperature over different time scales.

View attachment 712167

Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?)

skepticalscience.com

View attachment 712169

The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century

Previously, we looked at the correlation between CO2 and temperature over the past 40 years. However, as I'm always saying, you need to look at the broader view, not just a single piece of the puzzle. The 40 year period was chosen to demonstrate that even during a period of long term warming...

skepticalscience.com

View attachment 712171

Global Temperature and Carbon Dioxide | GlobalChange.gov

Global annual average temperature (as measured over both land and oceans) has increased by more than 1.5°F (0.8°C) since 1880 (through 2012). Red bars show temperatures above the long-term average, and blue bars indicate temperatures below the long-term average. The black line shows atmospheric...

www.globalchange.gov

View attachment 712172

https://cen.acs.org/articles/87/i51/Comes-First-CO2-Heat.html

View attachment 712173
This is the closest to the original question. The answer seems to come from climate science rather than statistics. Even though the graph has an R-squared value of 0.752, showing a consistent linear relationship between CO2 and temperature, climate science seems to indicate that increases in CO2 have a logarithmic relation to changes in temperature. The best numbers that I could find are for every doubling of CO2 global temperature increases 3C.

Does the high coefficient of determination in this graph predict a huge spike in global warming?

I have had three semesters of college statistics as part of my BSBA degree. From what I recall from regression analysis the graph seems to show a very high coefficient of determination between CO2 ...

stats.stackexchange.com

And if you know some statistics this website provides:
The average coefficient of determination (R-squared) turns out to be 0.752
Asynchrony between Antarctic temperature and CO2 associated with obliquity over the past 720,000 years
For the entire record, the 90% confidence ranges of the correlations (R-squared) of CO2 with δD, ΔTsite and ΔTsource are 0.68–0.73, 0.76–0.80 and 0.75–0.79, respectively.

And finally
View attachment 712182

Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

<p>When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate.</p>

skepticalscience.com

The absorption of IR by CO2 was demonstrated in the lab in 1856. These days, the results of more accurate instrumentation in the lab provide us these data:
View attachment 712188


"Engage atomic energy"??? Did you actually think that sounded like you knew what your were talking about?

Those laboratory experiments have shown that for the frequencies that CO2 absorbs, its concentrations in the atmosphere is sufficient to absorb 100% of radiated energy in a column length of less than 10 meters.

[Sadly shakes head]

still looks like CO2 rise is after temperature rise.

 

[Crick]

still looks like CO2 rise is after temperature rise.

View attachment 712333

For most of history - but not all - it did. So what?

 

[jc456]

For most of history - but not all - it did. So what?

because magic eight ball changed how it worked. gotcha.

 

[ding]

"Linearly-detrended T-proxies over the last 425 million years"??? Do you actually think that obscure little line at the far extremes of the discussion (whose source you failed to identify) overwhelms the correlation data I displayed and to which I linked in post #915?

I'm sorry, but that is absolutely pathetic desperation. But you feel free to call that back up every time we speak.

The correlation is broken because CO2 is no longer a proxy for temperature. If it were it wouldn’t be 2 C cooler with 120 ppm more CO2.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

For most of history - but not all - it did. So what?

So CO2 does NOT drive climate

 

[Crick]

The correlation is broken because CO2 is no longer a proxy for temperature. If it were it wouldn’t be 2 C cooler with 120 ppm more CO2.

So you think data from 425 million years ago refutes this:

and this:

and this:

and this:

and this:

and this

and this

and this:

eh? Perhaps you want to suggest that CO2 has changed over time...

 

[Grumblenuts]

"Davis, W.J. The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years. Climate 2017, 5, 76. The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years"

Abstract​

Assessing human impacts on climate and biodiversity requires an understanding of the relationship between the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere and global temperature (T). Here I explore this relationship empirically using comprehensive, recently-compiled databases of stable-isotope proxies from the Phanerozoic Eon (~540 to 0 years before the present) and through complementary modeling using the atmospheric absorption/transmittance code MODTRAN. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T proxies over the last 425 million years.

"Assessing human impacts on climate and biodiversity"? Words like "current" or "present" appear horribly absent. I really don't think we had much to do with it 540 million yrs ago. Correlation?

Homo sapiens, the first modern humans, evolved from their early hominid predecessors between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago.

"Here I explore {..yada, yada..} linearly-detrended T proxies over the last 425 million years."
Detrended?

Adjective. detrended (not comparable) (statistics, said of data) having long-term trends removed in order to emphasise short-term changes.

Ah, so we focus on the short-term trends while deliberately ignoring the longer ones way back when to better understand the longer ones now. And we say, "Look Mom, no correlation!" after removing all of the most obvious correlation. Hmm,..? Well,.. doesn't that defy all logic!

 

[Crick]

Same arguments ... why do you never learn? ... Lying again Chick? ...

One of your links regarding correlation says this: "Atmospheric CO2 concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T proxies over the last 425 million years" ...

You didn't read this scientific paper ... because it completely confirms what all of us have been telling you all these years ... you just can't stop your lies, can you? ... but thank you for the link, I'll be rubbing your nose in it every time you say "correlation" ...

In a response to the subject article I offer the following studies all finding a strong correlation between CO2 and global temperature.:

On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature - Scientific Reports

We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total...

www.nature.com

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.16.8370

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

CO2, the greenhouse effect and global warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Callendar to today's Earth System Models

Climate warming during the course of the twenty-first century is projected to be between 1.0 and 3.7°C depending on future greenhouse gas emissions, b…

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[Grumblenuts]

Difficult to find much of anything else published by this "Davis, W.J." (Professor William Jackson Davis - "Environmental Studies Institute, Boulder, CO 80301, USA") but apparently his most recent (of three publications total) theorizes that Antarctic winds cause all climate change, past, present, and future. All this seemingly deduced from collecting wind data taken from "drill sites" -- indicating oil drilling, not ice coring. Seems like a real wacko, but the school continues receiving millions in grants from the NSF. Wonder which major oil companies are sliding money in as well?

 

[Crick]

Difficult to find much of anything else published by this "Davis, W.J." (Professor William Jackson Davis - "Environmental Studies Institute, Boulder, CO 80301, USA") but apparently his most recent (of three publications total) theorizes that Antarctic winds cause all climate change, past, present, and future. All this seemingly deduced from collecting wind data taken from "drill sites" -- indicating oil drilling, not ice coring. Seems like a real wacko, but the school continues receiving millions in grants from the NSF. Wonder which major oil companies are sliding money in as well?

He does not get published in major journals. MDPI is not a well-regarded journal and Davis always seems to work alone. He has a few citations and I could find no serious researchers discussing him at all. His is not the only paper to suggest that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature but they are a tiny fraction of the papers finding otherwise and all of them deal with trends hundreds of millions of years in the past. All data 60 million years and newer show robust correlation. I can't help but think that either some unrealized error is being introduced by the age of the proxies, that some other factor in the distant past dominated global temperatures: differences in the composition of the atmosphere, differences in the configuration of the continental masses, massive volcanism, who knows. Two of the papers I linked noted that CO2 correlation weakened at high levels of CO2, which makes sense given the logarithmic relationship of the two parameters. That is, going from, say, 800 ppm to 1,000 ppm would not produce a distinctive temperature increase because the effect of the change is reduced. And CO2 did get very high in the early Phanerozoic. Once you get past about 300 million years, it hits 2,000 ppm and climbs to about 4,500 ppm all the way back.