Researchers find ancient records of freeze-thaw cycles in Antarctica . . . before the bad ol' industrial revolution came along to drive Climate Change . . . they must be wrong, only men can cause warmening!

submitted by iamonlyoneman from wattsupwiththat.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Correlation does not prove causation.

The causation is known from first principles. If you don't understand the greenhouse effect Google it. The wiki page on the subject used to be a decent primer.

Co2 has doubled in the last 100 years and temperature has not.

For a doubling of CO2, you will get about a 3 kelvin rise in temperature, once the new equilibrium temperature is reached. It takes a few decades for most of that to occur.

It doesn't go from 287 kelvins to 574 kelvins, that's a good 9500% out.

Co2 and temperature has decoupled

Nope. You've just got a bad misunderstanding of how they relate.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

For a doubling of CO2, you will get about a 3 kelvin rise in temperature, once the new equilibrium

Do you have a source for that claim?

takes a few decades for most of that to occur.

Then why is there not such a lag in the graph correlating temperature and co2?

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Do you have a source for that claim?

I can find one:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7524012/

Then why is there not such a lag in the graph correlating temperature and co2?

Increasing CO2 increases the energy imbalance. The temperature then slowly builds up.

Like how the temperature of the oven doesn't change immediately on turning on the power. You have to pre-heat it for consistent results.

But the oceans are deep and take a lot of energy to increase in temperature compared to the air in your oven, and ice-albedo feedback is particularly slow where ice sheets are thick.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Moreover, the interpretation of each strand requires structural assumptions that cannot be proven, and sometimes ECS measures have been estimated from each strand that are not fully equivalent. This complexity and uncertainty thwarts rigorous, definitive calculations and gives expert judgment and assumptions a potentially large role.

In thier own words they admit this isn't science, it's guesswork. Taking this paper as anything other than an appeal to authority is foolish. All the people making these "expert" opinions are biased and heavily incentivised to come to the "right" conclusion.

Furthermore, if every doubling of CO2 has a linear increase in temperature then the co2-temperature graphs would not overlap. That is a huge flaw in the very premise of thier claim. This paper is claiming that an exponential growth in co2 is needed for a steady linear growth in temperature, and that is not what any of the official models are using.

They also make zero consideration for the possibility that co2 increases are driven by temperature. They are simply making huge assumptions about the data, then extrapolating from that wild (by thier own admission unprovable and contradictory) conclusions.

There are thousands of biased, junk science papers like this. If you never analyze them critically then you are really nothing more than a sheep who is beholden to the propagandist who control the journals. You simply believe whatever they print. And ironically that makes you think you are more informed then everyone else.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

In thier own words they admit this isn't science, it's guesswork.

The error bars are wide. But the climate sensitivity is about 3°C per doubling.

This paper is claiming that an exponential growth in co2 is needed for a steady linear growth in temperature, and that is not what any of the official models are using.

You're wrong about climate sensitivity in models. It has always been in temperature per doubling.

It's not linear because the absorbance in the spectral bands that CO2 absorbs in becomes near staturated near the middle of the band, so adding CO2 doesn't have as much of an effect as that frequency band of radiative heat is already not getting out of the atmosphere.

The absorption band continues to get broader, as a greater proportion of the light gets caught lower in the atmosphere, where pressure from other molecules in the air interferes with the exact energy state of the absorbing electrons.

They also make zero consideration for the possibility that co2 increases are driven by temperature.

That's the case in the past. You get a feedback loop between the two, causing the sudden collapse of the glaciation on Milankovitch cycles. But the current CO2 increase can be identified as from fossil fuel combustion, because we can estimate how much CO2 has been released from fossil fuel combustion, and only about half of that remains in the atmosphere.

We've released so much CO2 into the atmosphere that the oceans and terrestrial biosphere are absorbing Carbon instead of releasing it even though it's warning.

There is complementary evidence from relative carbon isotope concentrations. Fossil fuel carbon is especially depleted in C14 and C13, and the reduction in the proportion of those isotopes in the atmosphere have been measured. This is also used to track the flow of anthropogenic carbon emissions into the oceans.

There are thousands of biased, junk science papers like this. If you never analyze them critically then you are really nothing more than a sheep who is beholden to the propagandist who control the journals. You simply believe whatever they print. And ironically that makes you think you are more informed then everyone else.

Oh the irony.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The error bars are wide.

The error bars are made up.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You don't know what a confidence interval is either?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's clear that you don't.

In frequentist statistics, a confidence interval (CI) is a range of estimates for an unknown parameter. A confidence interval is computed at a designated confidence level; the 95% confidence level is most common, but other levels, such as 90% or 99%, are sometimes used. Wikipedia

The one given in the paper is 66%. Absolute garbage.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

absorbance in the spectral bands that CO2 absorbs in becomes near staturated near the middle of the band, so adding CO2 doesn't have as much of an effect

Disproving the run away greenhouse effect which is still the mainstream narrative.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Disproving the run away greenhouse effect which is still the mainstream narrative.

You talk a lot of shit for someone who pretends to have critically read thousands of scholarly papers on climate sensitivity, and "analyze[d] them critically".

The mainstream narrative is that climate sensitivity is about 3°C per doubling. And after about 1.5°C of warming we are at risk from tipping points.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The mainstream narrative is that climate change is an existential threat, and that if we don't act right now we will all die.

I'd like to see mainstream news debunking the run away greenhouse effect. Or any of the other claims that you deny are part of the mainstream narrative.

Co2 was at 4k ppm before the last ice age started. Then we were plunged into an ice age. Explain that, because that completely obliterates your claim that co2 is a thermostat which moves the global temperature 3* per doubling.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

That 3°C per doubling has been a more or less consistent estimate of the climate sensitivity to CO2 since the late 1800s.

That's what's been reported by the scientists, and had been understood my the car majority of the msm.

Before the last ice age, CO2 peaked between 280 and 300ppm. As it did prior to the two before that.

https://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Antarctic-Temperature.png

Why don't you fact check some of the stuff you're posting, before posting it?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Before the last ice age, CO2 peaked between 280 and 300ppm. As it did prior to the two before that.

Why don't you get your facts straight. An ice age is defined by year round ice, as we currently have at the poles. It started 3 million years ago. What you are confused by is interglacial temperature cycles. Ice core samples are inherently corrupted by selection bias. You can't get ice core samples from before the last ice age. Go do some research on what temperature and CO2 was before the current ice age started.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Then why is there not such a lag in the graph correlating temperature and co2?

You never answered the question. Your reply is irrelevant to the question. The data does not match your claims. It does not reflect the delay you claim exists.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You never answered the question. Your reply is irrelevant to the question.

I misread the question as "Then why is there such a lag in the graph correlating temperature and co2?"

Which graph are you referring to that doesn't have a lag?

The data does not match your claims. It does not reflect the delay you claim exists.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of some of the data. Show me the graph that's concerning you, and I'll be happy to explain it.