Yet more proof.

[BeElBeeBub]

Here's the Vostok ice temperature from the end of the last ice age to now.

All of human history from the earliest civilization (4-6k BC) to now fits on the left side of the graph 

And all through human civilization the temp has remained slow moving and within a a few tenths of a degree.

If we plotted the last century on that graph it would be a straight line up off the graph.

The word unprecedented has been used multiple times by scientists who know vast more about this subject than you or I.

[Scott777]

I believe there is conclusive proof for co2 driven warming from a host of different sources.

Warming by how much over what period?

[BeElBeeBub]

There are 2 separate graphs one for 600 million years and the Vostok graph, they both show CO2 lags temperature and they both show temperature and CO2 (ppm) have both been higher in the past. Take a look at 330 million years ago.

Where is your science that todays events show any variation from previous events?

There isn't any debate that CO2 land temp) have been higher in the past.

They have not in any time humans have existed 

And the rise we have seen is an order of magnitude faster than any on that (or the other) graph.

The rate of an event is important. There is a world of difference between going from 0-60 in 10 seconds and doing it in 1 second. 

[BeElBeeBub]

As for my argument, it's very simple: you can't show me anywhere that what we are seeing now is any different from what has been seen in the last 600 million years. All your science has done is taken an arbitrary lower temperature point and shown that the temperature and CO2 have gone up, and when this is examined over a few heat cycles there is no anomaly at all. There are thousands of scientists working for Harvard and NASA etc that say the same as I am saying, are they all stupid or being paid by oil companies to say it?

The rate of warming is a little under 1C per century.

That is vastly faster than any other warming even we know of. They take thousands of years to rise by 1 or 2C.

The quickest ones seem to be linked to massive volcanic eruptions like the Deccan flats that spewed mega tons of co2 into the atmosphere and even they were an order of magnitude slower in rising.


The "arbitrary" cold period the current temperature is being compared to is the most recent 100k years ie all of human history (and then some). Would you care to venture another period to use as a base line and also the reason it is less arbitrary than the most recent 100k years?

And why should we believe the less than 1% of scientists who are climate deniers?  Why is the voice of "thousands of scientists working for Harvard and NASA etc" (I'd love to see a list of them, I bet there aren't thousands, maybe a few dozens plus some retired ones) worth more than the tens, if of hundreds of thousands of scientists who agree?

"Ah but lone mavericks have been proved right before!" You shout.

But in all those cases the line maverick started out a lone voice then momentum grew and consensus grew until their previously fringe position became the consensus.

In the case of climate change, the opposite is happening. The size of the deniers is shrinking.  Climate change started as the fringe view and has grown since.

Your lone voices are the hold outs. They are the last few holdouts clinging to the miasma theory of disease or (dare I say it) flat earth over globe earth 

[Nick]

That graph, and your argument about "600m years" is not from the Vostok ice cores.

For a start, the Vostok ice cores only go back about 450k years

Secondly, if you look at the references on the image they don't go back to the Vostok Ice cores

I've pointed this out before but those two curves are from separate sources (both of which incidentally support co2 causing temperature rise) put together by a retired guy working outside his field.

There are 2 separate graphs one for 600 million years and the Vostok graph, they both show CO2 lags temperature and they both show temperature and CO2 (ppm) have both been higher in the past. Take a look at 330 million years ago. 

Where is your science that todays events show any variation from previous events?

[BeElBeeBub]

...

There is nothing suspect about the graph, it came from the Vostok ice core records, you can find the same graph in many forms via Google.

That graph, and your argument about "600m years" is not from the Vostok ice cores.

For a start, the Vostok ice cores only go back about 450k years 

Secondly, if you look at the references on the image they don't go back to the Vostok Ice cores 

I've pointed this out before but those two curves are from separate sources (both of which incidentally support co2 causing temperature rise) put together by a retired guy working outside his field.

[Nick]

No I don't.  I believe there is conclusive proof for co2 driven warming from a host of different sources.

What I don't concede is that the historical record shows temperature drives co2.

The basis for that claim is that a (slightly suspect) graph shows co2 lagging temperature over several warming cycles.

And then Nick uses that as evidence for his claim. There is nothing else to his claim other than "you can't show me an instance of co2 leading temperature"

So if I can show such an event his argument falls away.

And there are such events

But nick then pulls a "no true Scotsman" and says "yeah but those aren't real" (whilst the events that support his version are real, though how we distinguish between them beyond "what suits my narrative" is not clear)

There is nothing suspect about the graph, it came from the Vostok ice core records, you can find the same graph in many forms via Google. 

As for my argument, it's very simple: you can't show me anywhere that what we are seeing now is any different from what has been seen in the last 600 million years. All your science has done is taken an arbitrary lower temperature point and shown that the temperature and CO2 have gone up, and when this is examined over a few heat cycles there is no anomaly at all. There are thousands of scientists working for Harvard and NASA etc that say the same as I am saying, are they all stupid or being paid by oil companies to say it?

I wonder if you are aligned to these lunatics that throw soup and paint at Stonehenge and aircraft like petulant children? They asked for no new oil and gas licenses to be issued, Labour have just agreed to do that and guess what? They have moved the goalposts cause they've had the rug pulled from under them. 

[BeElBeeBub]

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?

The met office publishes the average max and min temps for a given period on it's website.

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

You can calculate the monthly average temp from these 

Effectively 
Average max is (H1 + H2.... + Hn)/n
Average min is (L1 + L2.... + Ln)/n

So Average mean can be (Max +Min)/2

From that you can see there was no selectivity to bias the results.

The results being the last winter was notably warmer than the base line 

[BeElBeeBub]

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.

Nick hasn't got around to clearing this up.

He insists that CO2 cannot drive temperatures, but also insists that O3 (in concentrations orders of magnitude lower) can drive temperatures.

Why the difference?  Why one and not the other?

He falls back on "because the historical record shows it has never happened"

But he hasn't shown an example of O3 driven temperature change in the historical record.

So in order to make his assertion about O3 he must be using some other evidence apart from the historical record.

What is it?

[BeElBeeBub]

Yes, I explained it to you as inertia. You think once in 600 million years proves a theory built on models that use incorrect data?

Explain again, how "inertia" can show temperature lagging co2?  Crucially, explain how such an effect can't be invoked to say "oh those times when co2 lagged temp were because of inertia".

The point is that the existence of a co2 leading temperature event undercuts your argument "such a thing has never happened"

You only need to see one black swan to invalidate the argument "black swans don't exist because one has never been seen"

[BeElBeeBub]

Will you concede that there is no conclusive proof either way?  Or if there is, show it (without too much gaslighting).

No I don't.  I believe there is conclusive proof for co2 driven warming from a host of different sources.

What I don't concede is that the historical record shows temperature drives co2.

The basis for that claim is that a (slightly suspect) graph shows co2 lagging temperature over several warming cycles.

And then Nick uses that as evidence for his claim. There is nothing else to his claim other than "you can't show me an instance of co2 leading temperature"

So if I can show such an event his argument falls away.

And there are such events

But nick then pulls a "no true Scotsman" and says "yeah but those aren't real" (whilst the events that support his version are real, though how we distinguish between them beyond "what suits my narrative" is not clear)

[Nick]

I've shown you at least one time where CO2 precedes temperature, but you have dismissed this with "but that just correlation, it doesn't show co2 drives temperature", conveniently ignoring the fact that you are also relying on correlation.

There is also the Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum, around 55m years ago which is thought to have been triggered by large inputs of volcanic co2.

Yes, I explained it to you as inertia. You think once in 600 million years proves a theory built on models that use incorrect data?

[Scott777]

I've shown you at least one time where CO2 precedes temperature, but you have dismissed this with "but that just correlation, it doesn't show co2 drives temperature", conveniently ignoring the fact that you are also relying on correlation.

Will you concede that there is no conclusive proof either way?  Or if there is, show it (without too much gaslighting).

[BeElBeeBub]

As far as I know you have not shown any proof CO2 has ever driven temperature.

I've shown you at least one time where CO2 precedes temperature, but you have dismissed this with "but that just correlation, it doesn't show co2 drives temperature", conveniently ignoring the fact that you are also relying on correlation.

There is also the Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum, around 55m years ago which is thought to have been triggered by large inputs of volcanic co2.

[Nick]

"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"

As far as I know you have not shown any proof CO2 has ever driven temperature.