CO2 - Dumb question

Edited By Hopper on 15/08/2022 12:34:21

So do you acknowledge that I answered your question with my point about the graph you posted being a regional dataset, and that this explains why it is not representative of global temperature vs CO2?

If not, can you justify why USA data (bearing in mind that the USA covers ca. 1.87% of the surface area of the world) is an appropriate dataset to use to represent global trends?

Edited By Bikepete on 15/08/2022 12:40:43

Which bit do you disagree with? Our technologies do protect us from some selection pressures, but not all!
For example there is evidence that older people and those with a darker skin have worse COVID outcomes in our climate. both these groups have poor Vit D synthesis. Vit D is one of the factors needed for a proper functioning immune system. Others are likely to have a faulty immune system due to genetic changes or a better immune system. In this case COVID provided the selection pressure.
Although the role of vitamin D is not fully understood, and low levels have not been scientically shown to be a factor, i did start to supplement my intake at the start of the pandemic. Trials are looking at its role. But we are far from controlling evolution, any new selection pressure shows that up.
The reason I mentioned the rate possibly increasing is that there are areas of modern human evolution were the rate is faster than expected, but this might just be down to increased mutagens.
I do wonder if our preventing evolution (death) makes things better, or worse. i.e. more people = more pollution = worse conditions.

I was once told to ignore any graph with false origins as they greatly distort the picture.

There is little point worrying because as individuals, even as the UK, there is little we can do about it that will make any difference. If raised CO2 is a problem then it would need a world wide agreement and solution. however, parts of the World are too busy arguing over who owns / should own pieces of land.
i might feel better if I plant more trees in the garden, but apart from proving cool shady areas at the moment, they will make no effective difference to CO2 levels.

Rather than argue with each other about whose graph is best, let's pretend for a moment that my graph is either totally wrong or doesn't exist.

If we now look at your graph in isolation, do you think it really shows that temperature & CO2 track one another? I see some divergence (over decades) where I wouldn't expect it, so I don't think either of us can rely on our graphs to tell the whole story.

Even if temperature & CO2 were in lockstep, it still needs to be proved that human activity, rather than (say) Solar activity caused it and also that raised CO2 levels are a cause rather than an effect of warming.

What's important to me is that we can discuss matters like this.

Martin.

Edited By blowlamp on 15/08/2022 13:40:49

And therein lies the problem. The debate isn't comparing like with like.

Science rejects personal quests because everyone is biased. Instead science exposes data, methods, results and conclusions to critical review, a wide sharing process that improves quality because everything is tested. Quite different to gut-feel, common-sense, assertions, opinion, beliefs and political thinking. These can be right or wrong, but their conclusions are untrustworthy because they don't require evidence.

Robin's statement 'you cannot be advised because the world has divided into factions and all you will get is propaganda.' captures the issue:

• Whether or not the world is divided into factions can be confirmed by measurement. This part of the statement can be evidenced one way or another, and therefore has a much higher value than the next bit.
• 'All you will get is propaganda', can't be measured and tested. This is personal opinion, an assumption that conveniently supports Robin's general argument if true. But no data supports it, and never will. Might be right or wrong, but the guess is worthless because no-one can ever know. Robin saying it confidently and others agreeing with him doesn't help. As the rules of evidence are broken 'All you will get is propaganda' can't expose a truth or falsehood.

In science, it's important to keep the need for evidence in mind and to ruthlessly ignore unsupported conclusions. Global Warming isn't the sort of political issue where feelings and emotions have a valid part to play. Global Warming follows physical laws and no amount of wishful thinking will divert them. Scientific methods are far more likely to get the right answer than common-sense, and it's important to get this problem right.

A number of posts criticise climate modelling. Fair enough thirty years ago, but time marched on. Turns out what the models predicted back then for now was about right. Critics back then said models were rubbish, yet models got closer to reality than they did! Someone goofed. Anyway, I suggest it's safer to trust models producing successful predictions than folk who got it wrong and haven't noticed yet!

Dave

I'm afraid I disagree. Changing the subject and "moving on" means you do not have to take responsibility for the graph and argument that you promoted.

You promoted a graph using USA data which covers only ca. 1.87% of the earth's surface, and claimed that this disproved the global CO2 vs temperature correlation.

I provided a counter-example from a reputable source, using global data which shows a clear correlation, to demonstrate that the USA data is not globally representative.

Unless you can acknowledge that the graph you posted is misleading, I do not think there's much prospect of useful further discussion.

We seem to be adopting alternative arithmetic. 421/280 = 1.504 to three dp, so an increase of 50%. An increase from 0.028% to 0.0421% is an increase of 0.0141 percentage points, not a terribly helpful statistic.

Just to break into the "is it isn't it" argument regarding climate change.

As engineers with your Health and Safety hats on you should be aware that Risk can be defined as the probability of an occurance multiplied by the loss or damage the occurance causes.

In the Climate change scenario Loss is rather large, half the word uninhabitable, widespread famine, water shortage and possible total breakdown of civilisation if not human existance. For such a massive loss the probability needs only to be even very small for the Risk to be enormous. (Personally I consider the risk to be totally unacceptable.)

So even the most died in the wool climate sceptics would consider the probability to be non zero even if they feel it's a low number and for the rest of us the probability is somewhere approaching 1. So even with a low probability with such high damage are you still prepared to bet the farm.

regards Martin

Quoting myself:

"Rather than argue with each other about whose graph is best, let's pretend for a moment that my graph is either totally wrong or doesn't exist."

What you mean is that once your graph is looked at critically & in isolation it shows itself for what it is and doesn't actually support your agument very well.

I like the way your graph illustrates a drop in temperature despite high CO2 and a rise in temperature with lower CO2 - over decades.

Martin.

These internet debates invariably produce a lot of heat and frankly little light. Perhaps……..no I will resist linking this to global warming ( now Climate Change).I sometimes think this is the new religion. Belief supported by contentious facts. Demonising of non believers with terms such as “ denier” and universal claims to de bunk and discredit. Particularly unhelpful is the sneer of the insecure acolyte when they think they have found the argument winning form of words.

I have some suggestions for those trying to persuade ,or as some contributors would have it “educate” the don’t knows who make up the bulk of members. Do not rely on “the science”. There is no such thing ,but there is very properly the scientific method. Fourteen percent of medical publications in the BMJ ,one of the top two journals in the world are accepted as being wrong ,with as many as half being wilfully so( reporting this from memory so numbers may not  be “ scientific”. Do not post silly links ( such a World Wildlife Fund glossy literature), or graphs whose axis are so easily manipulated. Try some humility . For example consider that the USA data dismissed on a specious argument on percentage of land data, should be considered. Why? Well the data ,even adjusted data, represents one of the largest repositories for high quality data over the last 120 years. We have vey little for sub Saharan Africa, mid pacific etc.. This new found humility on either side might help explore why the recruiting sergeant for global warming/ climate change, viz. the Great Barrier Reef decline is now reported by Aus authorities not to be so.

My last tip is for the UK government. Please stop putting that green flash on the registration plate of new electric cars. It simply reminds my of how much of my tax contribution is used to support my sanctimonious neighbour who buys a new Audi each year whilst burnishing his green credentials . Green my lower digestive tract.

Edited By Paul Rhodes on 15/08/2022 14:34:16

Stick with your metalwork and get back to the sarcasm when you've had more practice.

Martin.

No I don't mean that at all.

By concentrating on that concrete example I was just hoping you might realise that Corbyn used a clearly misleading graph. Perhaps you might then start to question why he did that, and to ponder what else could be misleading in his paper...

Anyway, FWIW I found this resource really useful when I was reading up on the subject - a very readable history which takes you through all of the logical steps via which the scientific case has been made (including many mis-steps and initial wrong understandings by scientists), and how the skeptical arguments (including the ones you made, e.g. on CO2 here) have been examined and addressed...

Good luck with your quest for understanding, I'd best get back to work.

Piers Corbyn is Jeremy Corbyn's brother. Need I say more

Yeah, don't leave us hanging.

Martin.

If I had to go questing I'd prefer to follow Parsival

Yes, you should mention that he appeared in the Channel 4 production called, "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

Phew, steady on gents......this is starting to get a bit heated and personal....I am sure the mods are hovering....

Regards

Derek

Won't this solve the problem? Less people - less polution. probably the only likely solution that is going to reduce CO2.