Regardless of the "thermometer" used, asserting that there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature is very different from asserting that CO2 causes temperature.
In every discussion on this topic I've seen, the assumption is that a rise in CO2 will cause a rise in temperature because the two variables seem tightly coupled. However, I haven't seen anyone delve into the exact relationship between the two. Could it be that a rise in temperature from some non-CO2-related reason causes an increase in CO2? I could easily see a scenario in which higher general temperatures facilitate a general increase in plant growth resulting in an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. I'm not saying I believe this to be the case. I am just pointing out an interesting logical fallacy I've noticed in any discussion of global warming. I love spotting such things in any discussion because the participants rarely realize they're doing such things. Thank you, college logic 101!
scareduck wrote:You have what everyone else has -- a proxy.
True 'dat. Data from a proxy that matches very well to well established math about how the earth spins and circles and tilts and wobbles. My proxy seems to be working very well thank you.
Regardless.
MSimon attacks data about modern day temperatures when the data is unimportant. It is not statistically significant enough to demonstrate any kind of trend.
You attack data about historical temperatures when the data is unimportant. It only shows a relationship not a causal relationship.
Attacking the data is the wrong approach, IMHO. The statistical basis of the former is flawed. The logical basis of the latter is flawed.
kttopdad wrote:I am just pointing out an interesting logical fallacy I've noticed in any discussion of global warming. I love spotting such things in any discussion because the participants rarely realize they're doing such things. Thank you, college logic 101!
Second, we know that CO2 is very high right now - a third higher than it has ever been.
Please explain how the Earth had CO2 levels around 7,000 ppm for hundreds of millions of years. Almost 20X higher than current levels.
As to CO2 tracking temperature. It does. First temp rises then CO2 follows with a delay of 200 to 1,000 years. So it is more than possible that the current CO2 rise (something like 80% or more of the rise is from natural sources) is being caused by the recent exit from the Little Ice Age.
In any case the current stagnation of temps and the following cooling we seem to have "enjoyed" are about to put a big hole in the global warming hypothesis.
Why? Well the vaunted climate models did not predict it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The temperature history of the USA is notoriously bad. Check out Anthony Watts' Surface Stations blog.
The USA data is the best in the world (not disputed). Thus global warming is based on very bad data. China - no continuous record. Russia the same. Africa the same. For all of South America there are 7 stations with continuous records and one of them is 200 miles in the ocean on an island.
So what can bad data tell us? Why the trends in the bad data of course.
Measuring air temps is probably the worst possible method for following global temps because the noise to signal ratio is so high. Ground temps and ocean temps would be better.
Satellite data is good. Unfortunately at this point the record is slim, 30 to 40 years worth of data. A data record that began around the time the latest slight warming episode began.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Second, we know that CO2 is very high right now - a third higher than it has ever been.
Please explain how the Earth had CO2 levels around 7,000 ppm for hundreds of millions of years. Almost 20X higher than current levels.
As to CO2 tracking temperature. It does. First temp rises then CO2 follows with a delay of 200 to 1,000 years. So it is more than possible that the current CO2 rise (something like 80% or more of the rise is from natural sources) is being caused by the recent exit from the Little Ice Age.
In any case the current stagnation of temps and the following cooling we seem to have "enjoyed" are about to put a big hole in the global warming hypothesis.
Why? Well the vaunted climate models did not predict it.
The wording "ever been" was unfortunate and attributable to a fast response. Please forgive. I was referencing the Al Gore charts which are part of his convenient untruth.
Agreed that the relationship between CO2 and Temperature is being reversed for effect and purposefully demonstrates backwards logic that most people don't see. Gore is claiming that he knows the Chicken came first. Re-read my post. I was being too subtle.
The temperature history of the USA is notoriously bad. Check out Anthony Watts' Surface Stations blog.
The USA data is the best in the world (not disputed). Thus global warming is based on very bad data. China - no continuous record. Russia the same. Africa the same. For all of South America there are 7 stations with continuous records and one of them is 200 miles in the ocean on an island.
So what can bad data tell us? Why the trends in the bad data of course.
Measuring air temps is probably the worst possible method for following global temps because the noise to signal ratio is so high. Ground temps and ocean temps would be better.
Satellite data is good. Unfortunately at this point the record is slim, 30 to 40 years worth of data. A data record that began around the time the latest slight warming episode began.
I am not arguing your points, mainly because it doesn't matter. Good data... bad data... it doesn't matter. It is statistically insignificant. That was my point. Again, probably too subtle. I feel the fact that it is statistically insignificant is more important to the argument then arguing the quality of the data.
In fact, most global warming "proofs" are based on statistically insignificant data - whether good data or bad data. Huricanes, melting ice, rising water... etc. The evidence proves nothing because it is too small a sample.
It discusses why CO2 going up lags behind the warming period following ice ages. To summarize:
An unknown something or another starts temperatures to warm. CO2 doesn't, distressfully. BUT... once temps go up a little, nasty old CO2 is responsible for the rest because the newly released few parts per million causes a feedback greenhouse affect. The first sixth of the warming comes from something else. BUT CO2 is responsible for the rest. Because, I guess, if temps are going up CO2 MUST BE RESPONSIBLE... eventually. The mysterious something or another apparently disappears after it kicks starts CO2 to do it's nasty feedbacking thing.
An interesting paper by Ernst-Georg Beck, a german biologist: http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/date ... 2_Beck.pdf (paper) http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/daten/ ... iden1e.htm (slides)
According to Beck, two centuries of chemical analyses of CO2 levels existed, that were ignored by modern climatologists. They show maxima in 1825, 1857 and 1942, with a great variability. Haunting scientific libraries for 19th century literature is not as fancy as digging patagonian icefields, but it looks as a credible and easier way to gather historical data.
Simplicity and credibility : what raised my interest for polywells.
If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew.
hello all, I had a question as far as economic turmoil goes:
1.what will happen to the electric bill, for example ...if Polywells were operational now would bills remain the same or would there be a decrease ? I remember reading somewhere that Polywell will give very cheap energy, but I dont remember if it was from Dr. Bussards notes or from a post here, since I read that a couple of months back.
2. if the energy distribution is very cheap...how many Polywell Power-Plants will it take to give power to larger countries, for example throughout the US ? ....and more densely populated regions like India, I am just asking so I can get a basic idea of what a completed Polywell could be capable of ....
3. and someone mentioned earlier in this thread that DC will become widespread. Will that mean we have to make changes in the houses we live in ?
Regardless of the "thermometer" used, asserting that there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature is very different from asserting that CO2 causes temperature.
In every discussion on this topic I've seen, the assumption is that a rise in CO2 will cause a rise in temperature because the two variables seem tightly coupled. However, I haven't seen anyone delve into the exact relationship between the two. Could it be that a rise in temperature from some non-CO2-related reason causes an increase in CO2? I could easily see a scenario in which higher general temperatures facilitate a general increase in plant growth resulting in an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. I'm not saying I believe this to be the case. I am just pointing out an interesting logical fallacy I've noticed in any discussion of global warming. I love spotting such things in any discussion because the participants rarely realize they're doing such things. Thank you, college logic 101!
Adding variables sews confusion, especially unnamed variables. Clearly, and I think we all agree, that any added C02 to the atmosphere makes the thermal budget of the planet balance at a higher temperature. Without adding more variables, _that_ is the relationship between C02 Levels and Temperature. Any model or view based on the premise that CO2 levels follow temperature has a huge burden of proof to overcome that always is ignored, and probably impossible to show.
