Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So why are you exaggerating how frail and "sensitive" the climate system is?*You don't think that blowing up 1.1DegC for doubling CO2 to 6degC this century this century isn't exaggeration? You don't think putting Miami under water or Malaria in Kansas isn't exaggeration?*Actually -- some of your cohorts are literally WAITING for the explosion..*
GoldiRocks wakes up daily to see if the Arctic is still cool. and if his frozen GHGas calthrates have thawed yet. He DOES expect the end result to be a gigantic fuel-air bomb going off. Maybe he'll even give you a date..
"So why are you exaggerating how frail and "sensitive" the climate system is? You don't think that blowing up 1.1DegC for doubling CO2 to 6degC this century this century isn't exaggeration? You don't think putting Miami under water or Malaria in Kansas isn't exaggeration? Actually -- some of your cohorts are literally WAITING for the explosion.. "
There's an exageration. *Yeah, me and my buddy Hansen. Yeah, I was just over at his house this weekend. Yeah, that's it... I hung out with Hansen and then whole Working Group I. *We played pool, drank beer, and swapped stories about CO2... Yeah, that's it. *They're my buddied, compadres,*cohorts. *We like to refer to each other as proxies. *Cuz were all the same...
Beats the hell out of me what the temp/CO2 is.
What does this graph give?
(1+.5)/(380-305)=1.5/75=1/50 degF/CO2ppm
(380-280)/(2010-1940)=1.43CO2/year
So if CO2 is now 400, double to 800, 400/50 = 8
8+1 = 9 deg F
400/1.43 = 280 years
Nope, I get 9 for "doubling CO2" but that'll be 280
years.
It's 2010 and this century is, well it is this century. How about by 2100. *8degF/280y= 1/35 degF/y. *90y/35 y/degF = 2.57 degF. *So now at 1 plus 2.57 and thats *3.57 by 2100, give or take 3 years.
year * CO2 * Temp
2010 *380 * * *1
2013 *400 * * *_
2100 * * * * * *3.57
2293 *800 * * *9
But that's just on a calculator. *It might be better to use PC and better equations. *And I haven't double checked the math.
What's the IPCC get?
What's your best estimate?
Oh, that's right, you can't do math. *All you can do is exaggerate, whine, and complain about your exaggerations.
Oh, btw, carbon dioxide doesn't explode.
The idiot thinks CO2 is explosive.
I realize I am wasting my time talking to you, but others read these comments as well.
your first graph is misleading. CO2 and temps are measured differently, the scales on the y axis are arbitrarily chosen to visually imply maximum correlation. any other scales, or any other arbitrarily chosen offset would lessen the visual impact.
next, your math is interesting but just about every scientist and organization agree that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic rather than linear, although for approximations that cover only one or two doublings that may be somewhat OK. the IPCC says that CO2 is 5-26% of the greenhouse effect, whatever that means. and the greenhouse effect is responsible for 33C of warming. I believe I saw a MODTRAN (CO2 climate model) printout that showed 5ppm CO2 equivalent to the first 1C of warming. 5,10,20,40,80,160,320,640. we are in the 7th doubling therefore CO2 should be accounting for 6+ times (1-1.2C per doubling) = roughly 7 or 8 degrees C. does this agree with models of the greenhouse effect? (5-26%) x 33C = 2-8C, so it does fit but at the high end so we could reasonably expect less effect but not likely more.
a reasonable question to ask at this point would be, "why do you believe MODTRAN but not the GCMs?" MODTRAN deals strictly with radiative physics, CO2 and water, and the atmosphere cut up into more layers than GCMs. it is not trying to be all things, and the inputs are much more straight forward.
I dont believe the massive positive feedbacks predicted by GCMs. why? two reasons. the first is because Nature seldom uses unstable positive feedbacks and often uses negative feedbacks which help restore the system after a disruption. the second is because the effects of those positive feedbacks are not present, the hotspot is not there and the data are not following the trajectory projected.
personally I can understand how many people came to convict CO2 on circumstantial evidence in the 90's when every thing was going according to plan. I was not so quick to jump on the bandwagon because I lived through the Coming Ice Age Scare and knew that pretty theories didnt always pan out as planned.
without the large positive feedbacks there is no immediate problem, and certainly no reason to collapse our society in a fruitless effort to stave off a small portion of the imaginary problem with incredibly large sums of wasted cash.
Where do you think oil, coal and natural gas came from. The fossil fuel fairy?
LOL, now you are expanding your sequestered CO2 theory? So now fossil fuels come from CO2? *ROFL, you're the biggest posturing buffoon on this entire forum..
You pulled a BS theory out of your maladjusted, juvenile head, that has absolutely no basis in reality, your pals know it, yet you keep repeating it and they defend it.. And you wonder why we call you clones?
Tweaker, it's an ignorant and silly claim, not borne out of science but out of your silly head. Please point to ANY scientific paper that supports your make-believe theory..
I'll be here from time to time to see what you can produce...
We like your pencil lead diamonds in fertilizer theory much better. Yeah, that's it. *The carbon comes from diamonds and pencils in the soil.
Brilliant.
Where do you think oil, coal and natural gas came from. The fossil fuel fairy?
LOL, now you are expanding your sequestered CO2 theory? So now fossil fuels come from CO2? ROFL, you're the biggest posturing buffoon on this entire forum..
You pulled a BS theory out of your maladjusted, juvenile head, that has absolutely no basis in reality, your pals know it, yet you keep repeating it and they defend it.. And you wonder why we call you clones?
Tweaker, it's an ignorant and silly claim, not borne out of science but out of your silly head. Please point to ANY scientific paper that supports your make-believe theory..
I'll be here from time to time to see what you can produce...
If you don't understand the chemistry connecting CO2, the nourishment and growth of biomass, and the transformation of biomass into fossil fuels, you are in no way qualified to post here. That understanding is table stakes. I'm not surprised that that understanding eludes you. I am surprised that you don't even know what you need to know and don't.
Assuming that you ever went to school here, you represent an indictment of the US education system.
Here is an interesting factoid. *Since it's publication in 1913, Einstien's landmark paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" has never been cited in a research paper. *It is so fundamental that it needed no citation, so fundamental that it would be cited in every paper. No one bothers because everyone already knew it. It was simply assumed.
In the third and most famous article, titled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," Einstein confronted the apparent contradiction between two principal theories of physics: Isaac Newton's concepts of absolute space and time and James Clerk Maxwell's idea that the speed of light was a constant. To do this, Einstein introduced his special theory of relativity, which held that the laws of physics are the same even for objects moving in different inertial frames (i.e. at constant speeds relative to each other), and that the speed of light is a constant in all inertial frames. A fourth paper concerned the fundamental relationship between mass and energy, concepts viewed previously as completely separate. Einstein's famous equation E = mc2 (where "c" was the constant speed of light) expressed this relationship.
So why are you exaggerating how frail and "sensitive" the climate system is?*You don't think that blowing up 1.1DegC for doubling CO2 to 6degC this century this century isn't exaggeration? You don't think putting Miami under water or Malaria in Kansas isn't exaggeration?*Actually -- some of your cohorts are literally WAITING for the explosion..*
GoldiRocks wakes up daily to see if the Arctic is still cool. and if his frozen GHGas calthrates have thawed yet. He DOES expect the end result to be a gigantic fuel-air bomb going off. Maybe he'll even give you a date..
"So why are you exaggerating how frail and "sensitive" the climate system is? You don't think that blowing up 1.1DegC for doubling CO2 to 6degC this century this century isn't exaggeration? You don't think putting Miami under water or Malaria in Kansas isn't exaggeration? Actually -- some of your cohorts are literally WAITING for the explosion.. "
There's an exageration. *Yeah, me and my buddy Hansen. Yeah, I was just over at his house this weekend. Yeah, that's it... I hung out with Hansen and then whole Working Group I. *We played pool, drank beer, and swapped stories about CO2... Yeah, that's it. *They're my buddied, compadres,*cohorts. *We like to refer to each other as proxies. *Cuz were all the same...
Beats the hell out of me what the temp/CO2 is.
What does this graph give?
(1+.5)/(380-305)=1.5/75=1/50 degF/CO2ppmy
(380-280)/(2010-1940)=1.43CO2/year
So if CO2 is now 400, double to 800, 400/50 = 8
8+1 = 9 deg F
400/1.43 = 280 years
Nope, I get 9 for "doubling CO2" but that'll be 280
years.
It's 2010 and this century is, well it is this century. How about by 2100. *8degF/280y= 1/35 degF/y. *90y/35 y/degF = 2.57 degF. *So now at 1 plus 2.57 and thats *3.57 by 2100, give or take 3 years.
year * CO2 * Temp
2010 *380 * * *1
2013 *400 * * *_
2100 * * * * * *3.57
2293 *800 * * *9
But that's just on a calculator. *It might be better to use PC and better equations. *And I haven't double checked the math.
What's the IPCC get?
What's your best estimate?
Oh, that's right, you can't do math. *All you can do is exaggerate, whine, and complain about your exaggerations.
Oh, btw, carbon dioxide doesn't explode.
The idiot thinks CO2 is explosive.
I realize I am wasting my time talking to you, but others read these comments as well.
your first graph is misleading. CO2 and temps are measured differently, the scales on the y axis are arbitrarily chosen to visually imply maximum correlation. any other scales, or any other arbitrarily chosen offset would lessen the visual impact.*
next, your math is interesting but just about every scientist and organization agree that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic rather than linear, although for approximations that cover only one or two doublings that may be somewhat OK. the IPCC says that CO2 is 5-26% of the greenhouse effect, whatever that means. and the greenhouse effect is responsible for 33C of warming. I believe I saw a MODTRAN (CO2 climate model) printout that showed 5ppm CO2 equivalent to the first 1C of warming. 5,10,20,40,80,160,320,640. we are in the 7th doubling therefore CO2 should be accounting for 6+ times (1-1.2C per doubling) = roughly 7 or 8 degrees C. * *does this agree with models of the greenhouse effect? (5-26%) x 33C = 2-8C, so it does fit but at the high end so we could reasonably expect less effect but not likely more.
a reasonable question to ask at this point would be, "why do you believe MODTRAN but not the GCMs?" MODTRAN deals strictly with radiative physics, CO2 and water, and the atmosphere cut up into more layers than GCMs. it is not trying to be all things, and the inputs are much more straight forward.
I dont believe the massive positive feedbacks predicted by GCMs. why? two reasons. the first is because Nature seldom uses unstable positive feedbacks and often uses negative feedbacks which help restore the system after a disruption. the second is because the effects of those positive feedbacks are not present, the hotspot is not there and the data are not following the trajectory projected.
personally I can understand how many people came to convict CO2 on circumstantial evidence in the 90's when every thing was going according to plan. I was not so quick to jump on the bandwagon because I lived through the Coming Ice Age Scare and knew that pretty theories didnt always pan out as planned.*
without the large positive feedbacks there is no immediate problem, and certainly no reason to collapse our society in a fruitless effort to stave off a small portion of the imaginary problem with incredibly large sums of wasted cash.
"So why are you exaggerating how frail and "sensitive" the climate system is? You don't think that blowing up 1.1DegC for doubling CO2 to 6degC this century this century isn't exaggeration? You don't think putting Miami under water or Malaria in Kansas isn't exaggeration? Actually -- some of your cohorts are literally WAITING for the explosion.. "
There's an exageration. *Yeah, me and my buddy Hansen. Yeah, I was just over at his house this weekend. Yeah, that's it... I hung out with Hansen and then whole Working Group I. *We played pool, drank beer, and swapped stories about CO2... Yeah, that's it. *They're my buddied, compadres,*cohorts. *We like to refer to each other as proxies. *Cuz were all the same...
Beats the hell out of me what the temp/CO2 is.
What does this graph give?
(1+.5)/(380-305)=1.5/75=1/50 degF/CO2ppm
(380-280)/(2010-1940)=1.43CO2/year
So if CO2 is now 400, double to 800, 400/50 = 8
8+1 = 9 deg F
400/1.43 = 280 years
Nope, I get 9 for "doubling CO2" but that'll be 280
years.
It's 2010 and this century is, well it is this century. How about by 2100. *8degF/280y= 1/35 degF/y. *90y/35 y/degF = 2.57 degF. *So now at 1 plus 2.57 and thats *3.57 by 2100, give or take 3 years.
year * CO2 * Temp
2010 *380 * * *1
2013 *400 * * *_
2100 * * * * * *3.57
2293 *800 * * *9
But that's just on a calculator. *It might be better to use PC and better equations. *And I haven't double checked the math.
What's the IPCC get?
What's your best estimate?
Oh, that's right, you can't do math. *All you can do is exaggerate, whine, and complain about your exaggerations.
Oh, btw, carbon dioxide doesn't explode.
The idiot thinks CO2 is explosive.
I realize I am wasting my time talking to you, but others read these comments as well.
your first graph is misleading. CO2 and temps are measured differently, the scales on the y axis are arbitrarily chosen to visually imply maximum correlation. any other scales, or any other arbitrarily chosen offset would lessen the visual impact.*
next, your math is interesting but just about every scientist and organization agree that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic rather than linear, although for approximations that cover only one or two doublings that may be somewhat OK. the IPCC says that CO2 is 5-26% of the greenhouse effect, whatever that means. and the greenhouse effect is responsible for 33C of warming. I believe I saw a MODTRAN (CO2 climate model) printout that showed 5ppm CO2 equivalent to the first 1C of warming. 5,10,20,40,80,160,320,640. we are in the 7th doubling therefore CO2 should be accounting for 6+ times (1-1.2C per doubling) = roughly 7 or 8 degrees C. * *does this agree with models of the greenhouse effect? (5-26%) x 33C = 2-8C, so it does fit but at the high end so we could reasonably expect less effect but not likely more.
a reasonable question to ask at this point would be, "why do you believe MODTRAN but not the GCMs?" MODTRAN deals strictly with radiative physics, CO2 and water, and the atmosphere cut up into more layers than GCMs. it is not trying to be all things, and the inputs are much more straight forward.
I dont believe the massive positive feedbacks predicted by GCMs. why? two reasons. the first is because Nature seldom uses unstable positive feedbacks and often uses negative feedbacks which help restore the system after a disruption. the second is because the effects of those positive feedbacks are not present, the hotspot is not there and the data are not following the trajectory projected.
personally I can understand how many people came to convict CO2 on circumstantial evidence in the 90's when every thing was going according to plan. I was not so quick to jump on the bandwagon because I lived through the Coming Ice Age Scare and knew that pretty theories didnt always pan out as planned.*
without the large positive feedbacks there is no immediate problem, and certainly no reason to collapse our society in a fruitless effort to stave off a small portion of the imaginary problem with incredibly large sums of wasted cash.
So you complaining about scaling on the graph? *That's meaningless in terms of doing a regression. Scaling simply effects the presentation. *And, the appropriate way of scaling is to have the line extend the full expanse of the graph. Otherwise, it's just wasted space.
Right there says enough to demonstrate that you really don't know. *Anyone with basic and solid understanding of presenting and dealing with data knows the difference between presentation of data and correlation. *Scaling has zero effect of the mathematical correlation.
I'm sure you've seen lots of different treatments of determining the correlation between CO2 and temps. * * * *And, perhaps, beneath the CO2 and temp are additional processes like H2O, methane, etc. *CO2 drives temps which further drive H2O. *Burning of fossil fuel releases both CO2 and methane in some proportion. *That's all fine and dandy. *
But it doesn't change;*
Anom = a*+ b * CO2, it modifies it.
I just eyeballed it and did a basic, and 100% correct, calculation to get about 1/50 deg F/CO2 ppm. *A more refined calculation, done in Excel, is
It gets .00922 degC/CO2.
It is simply a least squares linear regression on the real CO2 measure and real temp anomoly. *Real, real, real.
Oh, and it's not a "computer model simulation".*
I can guarantee that everyone with a PhD, studying climate change, did exactly what I did, first thing. *It's the easy one. *And everything they did afterwards, they compare to that, to check that their more refined theory and calculation were at least as good. *
If some computer model generated logarithmic formulation doesn't yield -3.08*+ 0.00922 * CO2(ppm), over the observed and measured range, then it is wrong. Every theory, formula, model, and simulation must agree with the real observed data.
The reason you are "I realize I am wasting my time talking to you" is because you are ignoring the simple reality, right in front of our face.
In the scatter plot of temp anomoly v CO2, where is the logarithmic relationship? *If it was logarithmic, it would curve. *Does it look like a curve to you?
We don't get to ignore reality and then call it science.
does the CO2/temp correlation look as menacing in this graph?
I realize I am wasting my time talking to you, but others read these comments as well.
your first graph is misleading. CO2 and temps are measured differently, the scales on the y axis are arbitrarily chosen to visually imply maximum correlation. any other scales, or any other arbitrarily chosen offset would lessen the visual impact.*
next, your math is interesting but just about every scientist and organization agree that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic rather than linear, although for approximations that cover only one or two doublings that may be somewhat OK. the IPCC says that CO2 is 5-26% of the greenhouse effect, whatever that means. and the greenhouse effect is responsible for 33C of warming. I believe I saw a MODTRAN (CO2 climate model) printout that showed 5ppm CO2 equivalent to the first 1C of warming. 5,10,20,40,80,160,320,640. we are in the 7th doubling therefore CO2 should be accounting for 6+ times (1-1.2C per doubling) = roughly 7 or 8 degrees C. * *does this agree with models of the greenhouse effect? (5-26%) x 33C = 2-8C, so it does fit but at the high end so we could reasonably expect less effect but not likely more.
a reasonable question to ask at this point would be, "why do you believe MODTRAN but not the GCMs?" MODTRAN deals strictly with radiative physics, CO2 and water, and the atmosphere cut up into more layers than GCMs. it is not trying to be all things, and the inputs are much more straight forward.
I dont believe the massive positive feedbacks predicted by GCMs. why? two reasons. the first is because Nature seldom uses unstable positive feedbacks and often uses negative feedbacks which help restore the system after a disruption. the second is because the effects of those positive feedbacks are not present, the hotspot is not there and the data are not following the trajectory projected.
personally I can understand how many people came to convict CO2 on circumstantial evidence in the 90's when every thing was going according to plan. I was not so quick to jump on the bandwagon because I lived through the Coming Ice Age Scare and knew that pretty theories didnt always pan out as planned.*
without the large positive feedbacks there is no immediate problem, and certainly no reason to collapse our society in a fruitless effort to stave off a small portion of the imaginary problem with incredibly large sums of wasted cash.
So you complaining about scaling on the graph? *That's meaningless in terms of doing a regression. Scaling simply effects the presentation. *And, the appropriate way of scaling is to have the line extend the full expanse of the graph. Otherwise, it's just wasted space.
Right there says enough to demonstrate that you really don't know. *Anyone with basic and solid understanding of presenting and dealing with data knows the difference between presentation of data and correlation. *Scaling has zero effect of the mathematical correlation.
I'm sure you've seen lots of different treatments of determining the correlation between CO2 and temps. * * * *And, perhaps, beneath the CO2 and temp are additional processes like H2O, methane, etc. *CO2 drives temps which further drive H2O. *Burning of fossil fuel releases both CO2 and methane in some proportion. *That's all fine and dandy. *
But it doesn't change;*
Anom = a*+ b * CO2, it modifies it.
I just eyeballed it and did a basic, and 100% correct, calculation to get about 1/50 deg F/CO2 ppm. *A more refined calculation, done in Excel, is
It gets .00922 degC/CO2.
It is simply a least squares linear regression on the real CO2 measure and real temp anomoly. *Real, real, real.
Oh, and it's not a "computer model simulation".*
I can guarantee that everyone with a PhD, studying climate change, did exactly what I did, first thing. *It's the easy one. *And everything they did afterwards, they compare to that, to check that their more refined theory and calculation were at least as good. *
If some computer model generated logarithmic formulation doesn't yield -3.08*+ 0.00922 * CO2(ppm), over the observed and measured range, then it is wrong. Every theory, formula, model, and simulation must agree with the real observed data.
The reason you are "I realize I am wasting my time talking to you" is because you are ignoring the simple reality, right in front of our face.
In the scatter plot of temp anomoly v CO2, where is the logarithmic relationship? *If it was logarithmic, it would curve. *Does it look like a curve to you?
We don't get to ignore reality and then call it science.
are you saying that you don't believe that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic? is that scientific?
All you'r doing is futzing around with scaling, which is meaninless.
does the CO2/temp correlation look as menacing in this graph?
does the CO2/temp correlation look as menacing in this graph?
All you'r doing is futzing around with scaling, which is meaninless.
does the CO2/temp correlation look as menacing in this graph?
anom= -3.08 + 0.00922 * CO2
or
anom = 2 * ( -1.54 + 0.00461 * CO2)
are exactly the same thing
The only difference is the choice choice of degC per inch on the page. Meaningless. That you have an emotional reaction to degC per inch of page is a personal issue. You might enjoy "Evaluating Scientific Research", by F. Levitt [ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1577663454/ref=redir_mdp_mobile]Evaluating Scientific Research: Separating Fact from Fiction:Amazon:Books[/ame]
Postal rates and CPI aren't green house gasses. On the other hand, CO2 is a GHG. And, there is a real causal effect of population increase and CO2 increase, though not direct.
That is the difference between spurious correlations and causality. When the two are physically connected, the correlation becomes causal. The rest is determining what the precise relationship is.
An additional, solid regression analysis, is based on this data
Which yields
"I used Microsoft Excel to run the regression. The data points covered the period from 1880 to 2007 inclusive, so there were N = 128 data points. The regression line I found was:
Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2
The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.
The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%."
Now here we have a nice ln fit of
"Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2" where CO2 is ranging from 290.7 to 383.6. *lnCO2 ranges from 5.6723 to 5.9495.
Temp is in hundreds of a degree and CO2 in ppm. "ln CO2 is the natural logarithm of the CO2 level. Radiation physics says the radiative forcing from accumulated carbon dioxide should be related to the log of the level rather than the level itself, so this is what we actually use in the computation."
The thing to do then, is to plot that regression result.
Here is the thing. *The ln function looks like this;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Log.svg
Beyond x=2, the ln(x) is, for all practical purposes, linear. *And, it isn't asymptotic. *It does continue to increase without bound.
Over the range, as measured in the atmosphere, there is no significant difference between the linear and log response. Over that range,*from 290.7 to 383.6, the ln response is simply linear.
This is not uncommon. *In radio and television transmission, the power goes down at 1/r^2 in distance from the source. In the near field, near the transmitting antenna, the power is clearly not linear. *The far field is different because, at a distance from the source, 1/r^2 is linear, for all practical purposes. *The difference between 1/4 and 1/9 is noticable. *The difference between 1/10^2 and 1/11^2, not so much. *The difference between 1/100^2 and 1/101^2 is meaningless.
And over the range of CO2, from ln*290.7 to ln 383.6 is simply linear.
So that reconciles the linear vs log issue.
link -> Temp v CO2 Correlation
