patrick.net

Onvacation says

It's not an argument it is a question: How can such a small amount, 4/100 of one degree, be measured over the entire globe? Most thermometers are not accurate to 1/10 of one degree much less 1/100th.
Can anyone answer how they measure such a small increase over the entire globe? Anyone?

You know of course that this is an average of thousands of measurements, and average of even round numbers can lead to fractional numbers?

And yes temps can be measured in fractions of degrees, but really: whether or not these digits are significant or not is itself totally irrelevant for this debate.

Onvacation says

And before you ask, yes I care about my children and grandchildren. I just think they will have more serious problems than CAGW.

... So let's screw them even more...

Heraclitusstudent says

I thought oxygen on earth comes from CO2

No. Oxygen is an element. The oxygen produced from photosynthesis comes from water. The co2 is converted into sugars (carbohydrates).

Heraclitusstudent says

burning all carbon literally means running out of oxygen

Do you really believe that?

HappyGilmore says

Try putting a small amount of cyanide in your food. Or a small amount of phosgene in the air you breathe.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is the kind of argument we get from denialists: It sinks under its own silliness. It stupidly equates chemical poisoning with atmosphere greenhouse effect. It is information free: just mud thrown around by a monkey that will repeat the same idiocy the next day just to disrupt any trace of intelligent exchange, and under the cover of anonymity so pay no price for it.

Yep

Onvacation says

HappyGilmore says

Try putting a small amount of cyanide in your food. Or a small amount of phosgene in the air you breathe.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is the kind of argument we get from denialists: It sinks under its own silliness. It stupidly equates chemical poisoning with atmosphere greenhouse effect. It is information free: just mud thrown around by a monkey that will repeat the same idiocy the next day just to disrupt any trace of intelligent exchange, and under the cover of anonymity so pay no price for it.

Yep

Nope--I wasn't equating chemical poisoning with atmospheric greenhouse effect.

I was showing you that small variables can have large effects. The fact that you cannot see nuance or subtlety is your defect, not mine.

Heraclitusstudent says

Natural variations do not happen without without cause. What is the cause?

Orbit, solar output, cloud cover, disingenuous scientists manipulating historical evidence to match their theory.

Heraclitusstudent says

Look at the real measurements: CO2 concentrations, temp increase, sea ice extents, oceans heat contents, radiations incoming and out going from sky, etc, etc... The picture is clear.

Temperature increase doesn't tell me much, for instance, unless i have the same fine grain data with non-proxy real measurements.

For example, did the temperature rise 1C between 1,100,100 ya and 1,100,200ya?

Tree Ring measurements from Northern Latitudes are a major source of historical data on temperature changes, especially more recent ones, the past 1000 years or so.

I quote a source against my interest, which is long on talk but short on answers.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm
It also dodges the real problem: Since most of the landmass (and trees, by far) are in Northern latitudes, then tree ring proxies 'diverging' (ie not matching actual physical temperature measurements) would not only give incorrect temperatures, but would greatly effect the "Global Average" and esp. for land temps given the distribution of land skewed to the Northern Hemisphere.

Their excuse is very poor and solipsistic:
"The proxy we know is off because they were taken in a time we could directly measure the temperature is divergent with proxies from the time before we could verify it with direct temperature readings, therefore whatever happened after 1960 must also be something anthropogenic". Horrible reasoning.

Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: The Proxy isn't perfect and has a margin of error, why we don't know, but it does.

Onvacation says

Can anyone answer how they measure such a small increase over the entire globe? Anyone?

really ? you're trolling. It's probably that each location takes readings june 6 2015 versus june 6 2017, and june 7th 2015 versus june 7th 2016 and so on. You do that for every day of the year, and you average the change. Then you take that (average) number and average it with the averages from all the hundreds of other locations across the planet.

If the resulting number weren't very very small, we would really be in trouble.

marcus says

It's probably that location takes readings june 6 2015 versus june 6 2017, and june 7th 2015 versus june 7th 2016 and so on.

At what time of day? Given a normal variation of 12 degrees over the course of one day, would they take a measurement sample every second to be more accurate? If they are more accurate in this way, how could you possibly trust measurements from more than 50 years ago when this wasn't possible?

I took multiple environmental economics courses in college. The cap and trade concepts using weather derivatives are why I went into the trading business (although that stuff never got started).

Back in 1999 we were reading Al Gore's ridiculous predictions.

It is completely rational to think critically about any model or prediction in this field. Any scientist who tells you they know exactly what will happen or claim to have precise temperature data is lying to you.

It is also perfectly rational to suggest we need to cut back carbon emissions.

Those two sentiments are far from mutually exclusive.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: The Proxy isn't perfect and has a margin of error, why we don't know, but it does.

But the important questions is--is there any reason to think this error would be biased towards warming?

CBOEtrader says

Any scientist who tells you they know exactly what will happen or claim to have precise temperature data is lying to you.

And of course no scientist does. They also don't claim to have precise temperate data. But when you take averages of averages over many readings over many locations, the errors in precision should offset each other, unless the people doing the measurement are biassed. But that doesn't even make sense because the same degree of bias would have been in the tens of thousands of 2015 readings as were in the 2016 reading. These people are obviously not fudging all those individual readings anyway. On any given day the temperature is whatever it is. It may be off by 20 degrees in either direction from the temperature the same day the previous year.

HappyGilmore says

The hundredths come from averaging.

noaa says their temp measurements are plus or minus 8/100 of a degree.
So the averages come out lower than the precision of the devices? How can this be?

Heraclitusstudent says

And yes temps can be measured in fractions of degrees, but really: whether or not these digits are significant or not is itself totally irrelevant for this debate.

Exactly. Does anybody disagree with this? Why?

Onvacation says

So the averages come out lower than the precision of the devices? How can this be?

Again intentional trolling. You can't possibly be serious.

If you are, try this: 200 readings are up by 5 degrees and 220 readings are down by 6 degrees.

What's the average change ?

Heraclitusstudent says

whether or not these digits are significant or not is itself totally irrelevant for this debate.

Not really. With the margin of error 2016 may NOT have been the hottest year EVER.

Statistically, with measurement error, there has been very little, if any, warming.

Onvacation is trolling. Just intentionally seeing how much time he can make you waste. And laughing at you for being stupid enough to answer him.

Either that, or there is another possibility.

CBOEtrader says

It is completely rational to think critically about any model or prediction in this field. Any scientist who tells you they know exactly what will happen or claim to have precise temperature data is lying to you.

It is also perfectly rational to suggest we need to cut back carbon emissions.

Those two sentiments are far from mutually exclusive.

Another voice of reason.

Just because I don't believe in co2 caused CAGW does not mean I think we should continue to pollute.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah well but birth rates are collapsing over the planet (most increase of population that are planned are from people living older), and electric vehicles are on their way to become soon cheaper than gas ones.

Electric Vehicles use Rare Earth Metals which are incredibly polluting to refine. To switch to electric, we'd have to drastically increase electric generation - while moving to renewables that are today fractional to fossil fuels.

The birth rate is slowly declining globally. Now we need to go into reverse with child maximum with a mixture of carrots (free education, cash grants) and sticks (higher taxes, points off on civil service exams, etc.)

Heraclitusstudent says

If we were to continue burning fuel as we are now, the real fun would start after 2100: we wouldn't be talking of 1 or 2C. The CO2 accumulated would be such that temperatures would rise maybe 1C per decade. Oceans would rise by several meters. Parts of the land would inhabitable and ravaged by deadly heat waves on a regular basis, other parts lost to sea. Hundreds of millions of "poor people" might move north to humm the US, Europe, etc... If Europe can't take a million Syrians, what is the political impact of 200 or 300 millions Africans or Indians? What is the stability of our civilization under such circumstances?

Predictive models have a crappy track record. And the more complex, the further from reality they end up being.

There's no reason to think we'll have exponential increases in CO2 or Temperature.

As for moving north, build the Wall and have the Italians sink a few boats with a 76mm gun.

Onvacation says

Not really. With the margin of error 2016 may NOT have been the hottest year EVER.

Statistically, with measurement error, there has been very little, if any, warming.

Again--that's not how MOE works.

Sniper says

Increasing the CO2 levels in these environments is essential for good results. Additionally, there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%!

As someone else mentioned, what does Co2 for plant growth or human breathing have to do with the greenhouse effect ?

marcus says

As someone else mentioned, what does Co2 for plant growth or human breathing have to do with the greenhouse effect ?

It does a lot for plant growth, for the greenhouse affect, it's a nothingburger, as it's a TRACE gas.

You know when you troll, and you laugh at people for answering your intentionally stupid questions do you ever wonder why they answer those questions, that is why they think you are sincere ?

Sniper says

for the greenhouse affect, it's a nothingburger

This is incorrect. But at least it's relevant to the conversation, unlike all the irrelevant jibberish about plant and human resperation of Co2.

Onvacation says

Statistically, with measurement error, there has been very little, if any, warming.

The trend is very clear and is way larger than any error margin.
You are just ignoring all information and graphs we took the care to post. Not an honest answer nor a sincere pursuit of truth.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Predictive models have a crappy track record. And the more complex, the further from reality they end up being.

Yeah. Let's all bet the future of mankind that models happen to be wrong in the way you hope for.
To ignore such a threat you would at least need a reasonable explanation of why the model COULD be wrong. What physical effect has been ignored until now that could massively change that trajectory?
You have to answer this, otherwise you are just BSing about models and things you don't understand or for political reasons, refuse to admit.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

As for moving north, build the Wall and have the Italians sink a few boats with a 76mm gun.

In other words: let's murder enough people so the problem goes away and we can burn our fuel.
Not a moral choice.

Heraclitusstudent says

The trend is very clear and is way larger than any error margin.

source?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Heraclitusstudent says

Look at the real measurements: CO2 concentrations, temp increase, sea ice extents, oceans heat contents, radiations incoming and out going from sky, etc, etc... The picture is clear.

Temperature increase doesn't tell me much, for instance, unless i have the same fine grain data with non-proxy real measurements.

For example, did the temperature rise 1C between 1,100,100 ya and 1,100,200ya?

I'm obviously talking of recent measurements of things that happened recently.

Heraclitusstudent says

Let's all bet the future of mankind that models happen to be wrong

It's not a bet. The model's that have been represented have been provably wrong. Al Gore has been provably wrong, over and over and over again.

Which model/scientist/estimates would you suggest I look at? I have never found an intellectually honest representation of the problem. As I mentioned earlier, this includes 3 advanced college courses on the subject (albeit from 18 years ago).

Right wing doublespeak.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah. Let's all bet the future of mankind that models happen to be wrong in the way you hope for.

Or according to environmentalist eschatonics.

Let me know of a complex model on climate that made a roughly accurate prediction.

If the climate isn't the weather, and we are bad at predicting the weather 3 days out...
www.youtube.com/embed/8oJzfmWO3CU

We're always 3 minutes to midnight according to some learned people somewhere.

CBOEtrader says

The model's that have been represented have been provably wrong.

BS they have been mostly correct. The predictions of warming have been realized as proved by the many graphs in this thread. Just saying "provably wrong" doesn't make it so.
Plus the models have been refined constantly over decades, so that it is hard to find of BIG effects that they are missing. Which is why it is preposterous to dismiss the threat from the back of the hand.

CBOEtrader says

source?

Start by all the graphs posted on this thread.
If you don't see a trend, you either need new glasses or a new moral compass.

Do any of true believers donate to any foundations dedicated to AGW-abating activities? If not, why not?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Let me know of a complex model on climate that made a roughly accurate prediction.

Models are not made to make predictions. Models are made to project a set of concurrent effects over time and analyses the dependencies between vars.
Models certainly don't NEED to be exactly accurate.
A range from 2-5 degrees in 100 years already claims eloquently the need for action.
A range of 4-10 degrees in 200 years describes catastrophic events.

Keep in mind 200 years is an instant in the history of mankind.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Let me know of a complex model on climate that made a roughly accurate prediction.

They cant. However, even if they could do this in hindsight, this wouldn't be good enough. From hundreds of models, at least one would have accidentally guessed correctly. The reasoning and forward predictions of the model would also have to be accurate.

The only scientific approach is first to separate what we know from what we don't know.

We DONT KNOW the effects of CO2 increases on past temperature, MUSH LESS its precise effects on future temperatures. We do know CO2 is increasing.

We DONT KNOW how many fossil fuels we will burn in the future, nor can we accurately model the specific correlation between burning fossil fuels and the increase in CO2. We do know there is a correlation, but we cant precisely measure it.

We DO KNOW that humans, en masse, dumping CO2 into the atmosphere will have unnatural consequences on the earth. We DO KNOW there is finite reserves of fossil fuels. We can therefore conclude that we need to allow the free market to develop a sustainable solution to this problem.

We also know that the politicians who suggest they know more than they actually know, are doing so for power and control purposes.

Pulling out of the Paris accords was absolutely the right move.

Another Ice Age? - Time Magazine, 1974

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have...

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
It was the same shit, in reverse. "Decades of Cooling" resulted in "more extreme weather", blamed for both floods and drought! And shucks, "Decades of Warming" are predicted to result in both floods and drought. Not mentioned is the huge areas of the Canadian Shield and Siberia open for agriculture, and the tree line retreating.

Climate Alarmists, regardless of Hot or Cold, seem to think sometime 1850-1900 was the magical perfect stasis moment, and any difference in "Global Temperature Averages" will be like Emperor Ming the Merciless playing with his disaster gun.



Believe the Modellers! Believe extrapolations!

TwoScoopsPlissken says

If the climate isn't the weather, and we are bad at predicting the weather 3 days out...

Quite frankly a trollish statement I would expect from Piggy more than you.
Aggregates are obviously far easier to predict as you smooth out local irregularities. You can predict the climate next year over the planet to be the same as this year within a few percents.

Onvacation says

Do you really believe that?

Seriously?

What belief do you think is involved here? Earth's volume of unbound carbon isn't too difficult to look up. Neither is the approximate volume of free oxygen in the atmosphere. This is either a true statement or a false statement but belief has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Now without looking those numbers up, I would estimate that since solid carbon has a much greater density than air does, oxidizing all the carbon on earth would easily use up all the oxygen. It wouldn't even be close.

What calculations did you make?