Yet more proof.

[BeElBeeBub]

You keep going on about the fact it has been hitter or colder previously - true

You keep saying "the earth will protect itself" - sort of true. The earth will continue to exist (assuming no cosmic collision) for billions of years, but there is no guarantee the conditions on the surface will be conducive to human civilization.

And you keep going on about how co2 cannot drive temperature change which is patently false. Of course it can. We can see it on Venus. Without an atmosphere it would have a mean temperature if around 50C. Instead it has mean temp around 250C due to the extreme effect of it's very high CO2 atmosphere.


 Are you saying if we raised the co2 levels to 40,000 ppm there wouldn't be an effect on global temperatures?

The debate is not "can co2 drive a change in global temps"  it's "are the amounts of co2 humans are emitting capable of driving a change in global temps"


It would be comforting to think they don't. Because that would mean we didn't have to do anything particularly different. We could go on burning coal, oil and gas with merry abandon.

Of course we'd still have to deal with the undeniable change in climate.

But if we are responsible then we might have to do something. But the flip side is we can avoid the worst of the climate changes which will be cheaper and better in the long run.

[BeElBeeBub]

If you think 1.5 degrees C is thermal run away, then I pity the people that live in your house. 

1.5C is the level the climate scientists think will avoid tipping into thermal runaway effects. The more we go above this the higher the chance we will kick off something nasty like ending the monsoon season in SE Asia or stopping the warm currents that keep Europe from being like Newfoundland etc.

If you don't understand how big a deal a 1.5C rise in global mean temperature is then it's not that you "haven't bought in", you just don't understand the science.

[Nick]

Oh my god you soooo nearly get it.

Don't be condescending, it's not a good look. I understand everything you say, I just don't buy into it, there's a big difference.

Yes, there the runaway effects.  Things like melting arctic permafrost, increased solar absorption via darker surfaces no longer covered in snow and ice, higher atmospheric temperature leading to increased amounts of water vapour.

If you think 1.5 degrees C is thermal run away, then I pity the people that live in your house. The Earth has seen ALL these phenomena many times before, ZERO ice caps, higher temperatures, many times more CO2, all of which happened whilst Man wasn't even in existence. I keep asking you to show me the science and maths behind the AGW theory but all you've got are models that are designed so that when more CO2 is added the temperature goes up. How shocking that when you add more CO2 the model shows an increase in temperature. If we were in thermal runaway, removing humans from existence would not stop it, the seas would be giving off more and more CO2 and according to you that would increase the temperature more, that's thermal runaway and the result would be Mars. The Earth has had several thousand CO2 PPM and didn't runaway, but according to you it must have done as CO2 is the driver of temperature.

These are the things that keep climate scientists awake at night.these are the things that make them shout that we need to curb our emissions now least we accidentally trip one of these conditions and push the climate into a runaway.

How on earth (ha!) can you justify your argument "nature would not design such a mechanism"?

The fact that you don't even recognise that the Earth has mechanisms in place that protect its self tells me it's pointless debating with you.

Nature doesn't design anything.  It just is.

If nature has such a brilliant design why has the earth been too hot for us and too cold for us in the past?


Your argument seems to be "warming oceans emit co2 and therefore co2 cannot cause warming because if it did there could be thermal runaways and those are not allowed by nature"

Someone once told me that some things are true whether you believe them or not, and you are trying very hard to not believe co2 can cause global heating.

BTW where do you stand (ha again) on the question of flat earth?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1112950/#:~:text=Most%20members%20of%20the%20Intergovernmental,C%20between%201979%20and%201994.


This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, "In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."

[BeElBeeBub]

...another clue to the fact CO2 does not driver temperature. If the ocean warmed up and gave off more CO2, which then warmed the ocean even more, we would have thermal runaway. As I said before, nature would not design such a mechanism....

Oh my god you soooo nearly get it.

Yes, there the runaway effects.  Things like melting arctic permafrost, increased solar absorption via darker surfaces no longer covered in snow and ice, higher atmospheric temperature leading to increased amounts of water vapour.

These are the things that keep climate scientists awake at night.these are the things that make them shout that we need to curb our emissions now least we accidentally trip one of these conditions and push the climate into a runaway.

How on earth (ha!) can you justify your argument "nature would not design such a mechanism"?

Nature doesn't design anything.  It just is.

If nature has such a brilliant design why has the earth been too hot for us and too cold for us in the past?


Your argument seems to be "warming oceans emit co2 and therefore co2 cannot cause warming because if it did there could be thermal runaways and those are not allowed by nature"

Someone once told me that some things are true whether you believe them or not, and you are trying very hard to not believe co2 can cause global heating.

BTW where do you stand (ha again) on the question of flat earth?

[BeElBeeBub]

Yes you are correct, it's 1,500 years not 15,000, my mistake. Still, we weren't using fossil fuels 1,500 years ago. Even if you use 1%, that's still 750 years and the same still applies.

Except, and you've missed the point here, you've used the wrong values.

You attempted to divide the % the co2 has risen relative to it's start value (30%) by the absolute amount you estimate is put into the atmosphere (0.04% x 0.5%), except you botched the % calculation (0.5% of something is x 0.005) but the fundamental issue is you are calculating how long a relative rise takes using the absolute increment.

It's apples divided by oranges.  You get nonsense out.

You need to either divide the rise relative to the start (30%) by the amount emitted relative to the start (0.66%)

Or divide the rise in absolute %  (0.001%) by the amount emitted in absolute % (0.0002%)

Or divide the rise in absolute proportion (0.00001) by the amount emitted in absolute proportion (0.000002)

All of those calculations give about 50 years.  Which is well within the timescale we re taking about. 

In other words, your attempt to show the amount humans emit is too small to give the rise observed shows exactly the opposite.

[Nick]

To continue, I've explained why Temperature can lag CO2 in the short term but I've provided a graph showing millions of years where CO2 has always lagged temperature by around 800 years,  the reason is due to the capacitive properties of the oceans. It takes 77 years for the oceans to rise 1 degree C, and when it does increase it gives off CO2: another clue to the fact CO2 does not driver temperature. If the ocean warmed up and gave off more CO2, which then warmed the ocean even more, we would have thermal runaway. As I said before, nature would not design such a mechanism, it would design it to do the total opposite. And the fact the oceans are warming points to something that happened 800 years ago, or are you saying that humans have not only changed the relationship between CO2 and temperature, we've also distorted the way the oceans work? Are you saying we've altered all these relationships?

[Nick]

So if sometimes it can "look like the lagging axis is actually driving the other" so temperature lags co2 even though you claim co2 does not drive temperatures, why dies that not apply when you claim your graph showing co2 lagging temperature is proof co2 does not drive temperatures?

Methane has always been regarded as a greenhouse gas. What has changed recently is the scale of leaks has been shown to significantly higher than industry has aimed before.
Aside from the first sentence this is gibberish.

First off, your calculation is mathematically wrong

(30/(0.04*0.5) equals 1,500 not 15,000

Secondly the quantities you are using are incorrect.

You're massively mixing up your %s

I think you were trying to calculate how long it would take to raise co2 levels by 30% given the annual output.

If we use you figure of 0.5% of current co2 figures (it's actually closer 1% now but let's take 0.5%)

And we take the rise to be 100ppm for round figures.

100ppm is 0.0001 of the atmosphere (aka 0.01%)

The current level is 400ppm (0.0004)

So the annual amount emitted would be 0.0004*0.005 or 0.000002 (alot of zeros I know)

So now we divide the amount of the rise (0.0001) by the annual output (0.000002)

To get.....

50 years. Not 15,000

Now this figure is a gross simplification as it doesn't take the carbon sinks into account but shows your "ha! EXPLAIN THIS!" calculation is not the killer argument you thought it was (and you can't do maths)
No it exists in vast abundance but you are too blinkered to see it.

This thread started with your "hur hur, if global warming is happening why is it so cold in November" - which was blown out of the water but the fact the winter was one of the warmest on record.  If a cold November was sufficient proof to you that climate change wasn't happening why was a record warm winter not sufficient proof that it is?
What tinfoil hatted bollocks is this?

Climate change was made up by Mrs Thatcher to destroy the mining unions?!?

Genuine question: do you believe the earth is a globe or is it flat?

I'll comeback to you on this later as I've got meetings today but...

Yes you are correct, it's 1,500 years not 15,000, my mistake. Still, we weren't using fossil fuels 1,500 years ago. Even if you use 1%, that's still 750 years and the same still applies. I've shown you a graph where CO2 was in the thousands and temperature did not react to it. 

As for what you are saying is bollox, Margaret Thatcher, like it or not wanted to pull the rug from under the NUM, and she asked Nigel Lawson to go and find the reason.  She banged the drum for global warming at every opportunity and it did get traction. Some things are true whether you believe them or not.

[BeElBeeBub]

Correct, but I didn't ask for a situation where temperature just preceded CO2, it's perfectly

reasonable to expect that if one axis slows but another doesn't, the slowing axis then increases whilst the other passes it, it will look like the lagging axis is actually driving the other. This is the picture you would like us to see.

So if sometimes it can "look like the lagging axis is actually driving the other" so temperature lags co2 even though you claim co2 does not drive temperatures, why dies that not apply when you claim your graph showing co2 lagging temperature is proof co2 does not drive temperatures?

No, as the CO2 ship starts to sail away you are slowly grabbing onto the SS Methaine. Another act of economic suicide.

Methane has always been regarded as a greenhouse gas. What has changed recently is the scale of leaks has been shown to significantly higher than industry has aimed before.

If humans have added 30% TO the level of CO2 in the atmosphere then we have added 25% of the total. Seeing as we are adding (according to your lot) half a percent of 0.04% of the atmosphere per year that's 15,000 years: (30 / (.04 X 0.5)), either your figures are out or the Industrial Revolution was around 13,000 BC.

Aside from the first sentence this is gibberish.

First off, your calculation is mathematically wrong

(30/(0.04*0.5) equals 1,500 not 15,000

Secondly the quantities you are using are incorrect.

You're massively mixing up your %s

I think you were trying to calculate how long it would take to raise co2 levels by 30% given the annual output.

If we use you figure of 0.5% of current co2 figures (it's actually closer 1% now but let's take 0.5%)

And we take the rise to be 100ppm for round figures.

100ppm is 0.0001 of the atmosphere (aka 0.01%)

The current level is 400ppm (0.0004)

So the annual amount emitted would be 0.0004*0.005 or 0.000002 (alot of zeros I know)

So now we divide the amount of the rise (0.0001) by the annual output (0.000002)

To get.....

50 years. Not 15,000

Now this figure is a gross simplification as it doesn't take the carbon sinks into account but shows your "ha! EXPLAIN THIS!" calculation is not the killer argument you thought it was (and you can't do maths)

Mr B, where is your science? You could have one blinding moment where you show me
conclusive proof of AGW and I would have nowhere to but it doesn't exist.

No it exists in vast abundance but you are too blinkered to see it.

This thread started with your "hur hur, if global warming is happening why is it so cold in November" - which was blown out of the water but the fact the winter was one of the warmest on record.  If a cold November was sufficient proof to you that climate change wasn't happening why was a record warm winter not sufficient proof that it is?

When are you going to admit that it's a political tool started by Mrs Thatcher to destroy the N.U.M and has no scientific basis?

What tinfoil hatted bollocks is this?

Climate change was made up by Mrs Thatcher to destroy the mining unions?!?

Genuine question: do you believe the earth is a globe or is it flat?

[Nick]

You asked for example of temperature being a product of increased CO2.

I provided one.

Correct, but I didn't ask for a situation where temperature just preceded CO2, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that if one axis slows but another doesn't, the slowing axis then increases whilst the other passes it, it will look like the lagging axis is actually driving the other. This is the picture you would like us to see.

Neither I nor any climate scientist has ever claimed that CO2 is the sole driver of temperature. It is simply one of several. It just so happens to be the one humans are affecting at the moment.

No, as the CO2 ship starts to sail away you are slowly grabbing onto the SS Methaine. Another act of economic suicide.

Your focus on the small percentage of co2 in the atmosphere is odd.

The % of water vapour in the air is only 0.25% yet it has a huge effect on our climate.

CO2 may only be 0.04% but it's atomic structure puts it's absorption frequency right at a critical point , effectively closing the window of transparency formed by water vapour

Human activity has added over 30% to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That's not insignificant

If humans have added 30% TO the level of CO2 in the atmosphere then we have added 25% of the total. Seeing as we are adding (according to your lot) half a percent of 0.04% of the atmosphere per year that's 15,000 years: (30 / (.04 X  0.5)), either your figures are out or the Industrial Revolution was around 13,000 BC.

Mr B, where is your science? You could have one blinding moment where you show me
conclusive proof of AGW and I would have nowhere to but it doesn't exist. When are you going to admit that it's a political tool started by Mrs Thatcher to destroy the N.U.M and has no scientific basis?

[BeElBeeBub]

Let's not dwell on your graph that doesn't give us the data source, how about we discuss my graph that shows millions of years of data and the actual source?
Are you going to argue against that level of data?

You said you'd seen the source

But here it is again.

https://climate.fas.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/shakunetal2012.pdf

Now on the subject of sources.....


Your graph is a composite made prof HJ Ludeke

He's a retired physicist and chemical engineer.

By his own admission he has only turned to climate science since retirement, so it is not his specialist field.

Anyway, he has mashed together data from 2 studies

One for temperature and one for co2.

If we look at the CO2 source, Brenner 2003, it's a paper that doesn't touch on temperature at all. It's about fine tuning the modeling of the carbon cycle.

(https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02131)

However if we look at a later paper the same scientist co-authored (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17392784/)

The abstract says....(edited for brevity, but happy to postost the lot of you think I'm taking out of context)

"..... A recent synthesis suggests that the increase in global-mean surface temperature in response to a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, termed 'climate sensitivity', is between 1.5 and 6.2 degrees C (5-95 per cent likelihood range), but some evidence is inconsistent with this range...

...We conclude that a climate sensitivity greater than 1.5 degrees C has probably been a robust feature of the Earth's climate system over the past 420 million years, regardless of temporal scaling."

That is to say, the author considers that an increase in CO2 increases the global temperature

Now if we look at the the temperature citation, "Came and Veizler 2007" we find

"Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era"

(https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06085)

We can look at that abstract. (again,.edited for brevity)...

"..... Our results are consistent with the proposal that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive or amplify increased global temperatures"

Again, the authors clearly consider co2 driven climate change to be real.

So your evidence is a graph by a scientist working outside his specialist field using data from two studies whose authors endorse the climate change argument.

There is ample room for the non-specialist to make errors when compositing disperate sources.

TLDR: Both the sources for Nicks graph argue against "that level of data" and endorse CO2 driving global temperature rises

[BeElBeeBub]

...
secondly, by arbitrarily picking a period of time to prove your point does not mean you've proved it. Below is a graph CO2 over Temp from the last 800 million years and
it conclusively shows there is no correlation between CO2 and Temperature. That's 800 million years of science and the fact you pick 22,000 years to prove it does just shows scientists are desperate to have governments throw money at them. Not only are you expecting us to believe that humans adding 0.5% of 0.04% CO2 is causing the warming. You're expecting us to believe that we are changing 800 million years of the relationship.

You asked for example of temperature being a product of increased CO2.

I provided one.

Neither I nor any climate scientist has ever claimed that CO2 is the sole driver of temperature. It is simply one of several. It just so happens to be the one humans are affecting at the moment.

Your focus on the small percentage of co2 in the atmosphere is odd.

The % of water vapour in the air is only 0.25% yet it has a huge effect on our climate. 

CO2 may only be 0.04% but it's atomic structure puts it's absorption frequency right at a critical point , effectively closing the window of transparency formed by water vapour 

Human activity has added over 30% to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That's not insignificant 
 

[Nick]

Yellow is the CO2
Blue global temp
Red local (Antarctica) temp

(I didn't realise the key was text not part of the image)

Let's not dwell on your graph that doesn't give us the data source, how about we discuss my graph that shows millions of years of data and the actual source?
Are you going to argue against that level of data?

[BeElBeeBub]

Firstly, the key has continently disappeared of the chart, I've seen the original.

Yellow is the CO2
Blue global temp
Red local (Antarctica) temp

(I didn't realise the key was text not part of the image)

[Nick]

You asked if the high May mean temp could be due to concrete and roads, and I showed you the answer is "highly unlikely".

So we are still left with the fact this May was the hottest recorded in 140 years.

Not only that, we can also see the 3 hottest were in the last decade and the 5 hottest were in the last 3 decades.

A similar pattern emerges for the other months.

This is conclusive, irrefutable proof the climate is changing at the very least from the norm over the past 140 years.

To answer you points 1) & 2) - yes but not in the time humans have existed and definitely not in the entire span of human history (10-15k years)

So it is a bit irrelevant to say "it was hotter and more co2 before" because during alot of those periods the UK would have been inhospitable to our civilization.

would you be fine with the global temperature dropping 5C because that's no worse than during the last ice age when the UK was beneath a km of ice?

Point 3)  yes, there are periods in the records where warming has preceded co2 rises. Entirely expected as an example of positive feedback. Warming causes processes that release Co2.  This is exactly the sort of thing we need to worry about - right now we are the driver, but if we too into a regime where we are no longer the driver we are basically along for the ride.

However, *the same* record that deniers pull the "temperature before co2" examples from also includes examples of "co2 before temperature"


The global temperature lags the co2 concentration.

You asked for an example of temperature being the product of increased co2 and there it is.

Firstly, the key has continently disappeared of the chart, I've seen the original.
secondly, by arbitrarily picking a period of time to prove your point does not mean you've proved it. Below is a graph CO2 over Temp from the last 800 million years and
it conclusively shows there is no correlation between CO2 and Temperature. That's 800 million years of science and the fact you pick 22,000 years to prove it does just shows scientists are desperate to have governments throw money at them. Not only are you expecting us to believe that humans adding 0.5% of 0.04% CO2 is causing the warming. You're expecting us to believe that we are changing 800 million years of the relationship.

[BeElBeeBub]

That means absolutely nothing, they've already decided there is an anomaly, given it a name and a value. It's like the judge stating to the jury, This is the boy that stabbed the other boy, now let's hear from the prosecution and defence.
You've given the zero value an arbitrary point and value in time, as I keep stating: it's the weakest science in history. I've asked you to show me the maths but you keep avoiding it cause you can't.

Simple questions.

1) Has the Earth had much higher concentrations of CO2 prior to humans burning fossil fuels? Yes

2) Has the Earth experienced much higher temperatures prior to hums burning fossil fuels? Yes

3) Previously, has temperature ever been the product of increased CO2? No

Again, show me the science (not model) that flies in the face of the above.

You asked if the high May mean temp could be due to concrete and roads, and I showed you the answer is "highly unlikely".

So we are still left with the fact this May was the hottest recorded in 140 years.

Not only that, we can also see the 3 hottest were in the last decade and the 5 hottest were in the last 3 decades. 

A similar pattern emerges for the other months.

This is conclusive, irrefutable proof the climate is changing at the very least from the norm over the past 140 years.

To answer you points 1) & 2) - yes but not in the time humans have existed and definitely not in the entire span of human history (10-15k years)

So it is a bit irrelevant to say "it was hotter and more co2 before" because during alot of those periods the UK would have been inhospitable to our civilization.

would you be fine with the global temperature dropping 5C because that's no worse than during the last ice age when the UK was beneath a km of ice?

Point 3)  yes, there are periods in the records where warming has preceded co2 rises. Entirely expected as an example of positive feedback. Warming causes processes that release Co2.  This is exactly the sort of thing we need to worry about - right now we are the driver, but if we too into a regime where we are no longer the driver we are basically along for the ride.

However, *the same* record that deniers pull the "temperature before co2" examples from also includes examples of "co2 before temperature"


The global temperature lags the co2 concentration.

You asked for an example of temperature being the product of increased co2 and there it is.