Yet more proof.

[BeElBeeBub]

Quote from: Nick 18/06/2024, 23:55:21

A simple conclusion to this ridiculous notion of all AGW maniacs is: show me in the last 600 million years where CO2 has driven temperature. I have given you 600 million years of data showing Temperature drives CO2, essentially all you've got is theory and models.

"Showing" is doing a lot of lifting there.

You have posted a questionable graph that claims that co2 always lags temperature (there are some issues with that composite graph) then use that to claim that temperature drives CO2. Note you have used correlation there to go from the graph that can only show X lags Y, to a conclusion X drives Y.

Then when I posted an instance where CO2 lead temperature you said "ah you can't use the fact Y lags X to claim Y drives X.

At the very least the existence of an event where CO2 leads temperature you cannot claim "temperature always leads CO2"

[BeElBeeBub]

No 🤦, again you are putting the argument forward that ducks are made of wood.

Let's just clarify.

You argue that changes to the concentration of O3 in the range of parts per billion can heat or cool the planet.

But that does not mean that changes to the concentration of CO2 in the range of parts per million cannot heat or cool the planet.

What is your basis for arguing that O3 can change the temperature whilst CO2 cannot?

Is it a theory? A model of how the different molecules behave?.

If you believe that O3 has an effect on temperature then you must concede the possibility that CO2 does as well.  You cannot just say one does and the other doesn't unless you invoke a physics or experimental reason why.

[Scott777]

I don't understand what is misleading.

The figures are the figures.

How would you, in a systematic and scientific way, describe the winter we have just had?

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/weather/learn-about/uk-past-events/summaries/uk_climate_summary_winter_2024.pdf

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/weather/learn-about/uk-past-events/summaries/mwr_2024_04_for_print.pdf

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/weather/learn-about/uk-past-events/summaries/mwr_2024_05_for_print_v1.pdf

Yet another cop out.  Why not just answer the question?  Are you only capable of posting loads of information to obscure a simple answer?  Why not just be honest?  You posted a monthly min and max.  Will you say why, or just keep gaslighting?

[BeElBeeBub]

It's a fantastic cop out, but not what I asked at all.  Try again, but I suspect you are just dodging, because you selected misleading information and won't admit it.

I don't understand what is misleading.

The figures are the figures.

How would you, in a systematic and scientific way, describe the winter we have just had?

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/weather/learn-about/uk-past-events/summaries/uk_climate_summary_winter_2024.pdf

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/weather/learn-about/uk-past-events/summaries/mwr_2024_04_for_print.pdf

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/weather/learn-about/uk-past-events/summaries/mwr_2024_05_for_print_v1.pdf

[Nick]

Ok, so you think an increase in O3 in the troposphere would cool the earth¹. 

Great.  From this we can now agree that trace gasses with concentrations measured in parts per billion can have an affect on the earth's temperature and hence climate.

CO2 has a concentration several orders of magnitude higher (parts per million)

This means the argument "co2 is just a tiny % of the atmosphere so how can it have an effect"  can be put away.

Which also means the argument "it's arrogant to assume humans can't affect the climate" can be put aside as we can show our CO2 output is high enough (30 Gtn per year) to affect the total level (currently 3,000 Gtn).

So we have a situation where we both agree increasing the concentration of a trace gas (O3 or CO2) could affect the climate (cool or heat) and that humans are capable of affecting those concentrations.

¹I think you're made a slight mistake, an increase in the troposphere (the bit nearest the earth) would probably warm the earth, whilst an increase in the stratosphere (high up) would cool. I'm going to put it down to a mix up and that you actually meant stratosphere as you mention the ozone layer which is in the stratosphere (but we were primarily worried about UV not warming/cooling with that)

No 🤦, again you are putting the argument forward that ducks are made of wood. 
A simple conclusion to this ridiculous notion of all AGW maniacs is: show me in the last 600 million years where CO2 has driven temperature. I have given you 600 million years of data showing Temperature drives CO2, essentially all you've got is theory and models. 

[Nick]

You said I was being selective on using the 1991-2020 period as the baseline for the temperature anomaly.

The implications was that I/the Met office had deliberately selected that baseline to make an unremarkable month seem unusual.

Apart from the fact the baseline chosen (1991-2020) is effectively the standard being the most recent 30 years, if you did select any other period eg 1961-1990, the anomaly would be even worse.

It is conceivable you could make the anomaly seem less by (for example) picking the 30 hottest years on record.

But that would be being selective - just as it would be if I had selected the 30 coldest years as a baseline

There is 600 million years of data, why are you selecting 30 years?

[Scott777]

I'm happy to accept "strong evidence " instead of infer.

Meaning what?

[BeElBeeBub]

You really do love the old switcheroo.  You used the words "strong evidence".  I disputed that, then you switch to "infer".  We could certainly infer something from models, using this definition:  "to form an opinion or guess..."  But that is not strong evidence.

I'm happy to accept "strong evidence " instead of infer.

[Scott777]

You said I was being selective on using the 1991-2020 period as the baseline for the temperature anomaly.

The implications was that I/the Met office had deliberately selected that baseline to make an unremarkable month seem unusual.

Apart from the fact the baseline chosen (1991-2020) is effectively the standard being the most recent 30 years, if you did select any other period eg 1961-1990, the anomaly would be even worse.

It is conceivable you could make the anomaly seem less by (for example) picking the 30 hottest years on record.

But that would be being selective - just as it would be if I had selected the 30 coldest years as a baseline

It's a fantastic cop out, but not what I asked at all.  Try again, but I suspect you are just dodging, because you selected misleading information and won't admit it.

[BeElBeeBub]

I see what you did there.  You began by talking about monthly min and max and average.  Then you switched that to daily min and max.  My question was, why did you quote monthly min and max?  What value does that have?

You said I was being selective on using the 1991-2020 period as the baseline for the temperature anomaly.

The implications was that I/the Met office had deliberately selected that baseline to make an unremarkable month seem unusual.

Apart from the fact the baseline chosen (1991-2020) is effectively the standard being the most recent 30 years, if you did select any other period eg 1961-1990, the anomaly would be even worse.

It is conceivable you could make the anomaly seem less by (for example) picking the 30 hottest years on record.

But that would be being selective - just as it would be if I had selected the 30 coldest years as a baseline 

[Scott777]

Ok then. If you believe we cannot infer anything from models,  how can you state that the observed rise in co2 is not the cause of recent observed warming?

You really do love the old switcheroo.  You used the words "strong evidence".  I disputed that, then you switch to "infer".  We could certainly infer something from models, using this definition:  "to form an opinion or guess..."  But that is not strong evidence.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/infer

As for stating CO2 is not the cause, I never stated that.  In the absence of strong evidence, given that climate and weather has always changed dramatically, then we should not be wasting our time on the guess that it is CO2.

[Scott777]

The met uses 30 year blocks as the average.  That's just how it is. If you want to use a different block as your baseline you can but that just makes the April look even warmer by comparison.

For example the April averages for Kew Gardens (picked as random London location)

(period, maxC, minC)
91-20, 15.13C, 5.10C
81-10, 14.42C, 4.72C
71-00, 13.59C, 4.43C
61-90, 13.33C, 4.30C

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-climate-averages/gcpuckhb6

April (and May) were unusually warm, even if they felt crap.

I see what you did there.  You began by talking about monthly min and max and average.  Then you switched that to daily min and max.  My question was, why did you quote monthly min and max?  What value does that have?

[BeElBeeBub]

That's my mistake, I meant Stratosphere sorry.

I thought so 👍

[Nick]

Ok, so you think an increase in O3 in the troposphere would cool the earth¹. 

Great.  From this we can now agree that trace gasses with concentrations measured in parts per billion can have an affect on the earth's temperature and hence climate.

CO2 has a concentration several orders of magnitude higher (parts per million)

This means the argument "co2 is just a tiny % of the atmosphere so how can it have an effect"  can be put away.

Which also means the argument "it's arrogant to assume humans can't affect the climate" can be put aside as we can show our CO2 output is high enough (30 Gtn per year) to affect the total level (currently 3,000 Gtn).

So we have a situation where we both agree increasing the concentration of a trace gas (O3 or CO2) could affect the climate (cool or heat) and that humans are capable of affecting those concentrations.

¹I think you're made a slight mistake, an increase in the troposphere (the bit nearest the earth) would probably warm the earth, whilst an increase in the stratosphere (high up) would cool. I'm going to put it down to a mix up and that you actually meant stratosphere as you mention the ozone layer which is in the stratosphere (but we were primarily worried about UV not warming/cooling with that)

That's my mistake, I meant Stratosphere sorry. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Rubbish.  Models are not strong evidence of climate.

Ok then. If you believe we cannot infer anything from models,  how can you state that the observed rise in co2 is not the cause of recent observed warming?

You can't use the past performance of complex systems to rule out behaviour due to a new input.

"My wife has never had an allergic reaction to any medication before. Therefore the allergic reaction just after she's had an injection of a new medication cannot be caused by that medication"