Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Referenced and footnoted in the paper.

1. Koutsoyiannis, D.; Onof, C.; Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Christofides, A. On Hens, Eggs, Temperatures and CO2: Causal Links in Earth’s Atmosphere. Sci 2023, 5, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

 

Sorry you'll have to quote me that one.

 

Sooner or later you'll have to take an interest in the scientific literature. The short version here is that temperature drives CO2, not the other way around.
On Hens, Eggs, Temperatures and CO2: Causal Links in ...

MDPI
https://www.mdpi.com › ...

by D Koutsoyiannis · 2023 · Cited by 4 — Yet the investigation of a single causal link between two processes, as is the focus of this paper, provides useful information, with possible significant ...

10. Conclusions
With reference to points 1–7 of the Introduction setting the paper’s scope, the results of our analyses can be summarized as follows.

• All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO2] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years).
• Seasonality, as reflected in different phases of [CO2] time series at different latitudes, does not play any role in potential causality, as confirmed by replacing the Mauna Loa [CO2] time series with that in South Pole.
• The unidirectional T→ln[CO2]" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box; max-height: none; display: inline; line-height: normal; font-size: 13.2px; text-align: left; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; text-wrap: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">→ln[CO2]�→ln[CO2] potential causal link applies to all timescales resolved by the available data, from monthly to about two decades.
• The proposed methodology is simple, flexible and effective in disambiguating cases where the type of causality, HOE or unidirectional, is not quite clear.
• Furthermore, the methodology defines a type of data analysis that, regardless of the detection of causality per se, assesses modeling performance by comparing observational data with model results. In particular, the analysis of climate model outputs reveals a misrepresentation of the causal link by these models, which suggest a causality direction opposite to the one found when the real measurements are used.
• Extensions of the scope of the methodology, i.e., from detecting possible causality to building a more detailed model of stochastic type, are possible, as illustrated by a toy model for the T-[CO2] system, with explained variance of [CO2] reaching an impressive 99.9%.
• While some of the findings of this study seem counterintuitive or contrary to mainstream opinions, they are logically and computationally supported by arguments and calculations given in the Appendices.

Overall, the stochastic notion of a causal system, based on the concept of the impulse response function, proved to be very effective in studying demanding causality problems. A crucial characteristic of our methodology is its direct use of the data per se, in contrast with other methodologies that are based on uncertain estimates of autocorrelation functions or on the more uncertain tool of the power spectrum, i.e., the Fourier transform of the autocorrelation function. The methodology has the potential for further advances, as we first reported here (e.g., the asymmetric time lag window, the definition of a type of data analysis to be used in assessing modeling performance, and the extensions of its scope from detecting possible causality to building a more detailed model).

 

OK. So I am aware increased temperature can release Co2 trapped in ice and soil (The chicken and egg) What I asked you for clarity is,
If there is no sign of Co2 from human activity and all extra Co2 present is due to natural warming.
Where is all the Co2 we know humans are producing?

 

It's insignificant by comparison.

 

Yet Co2 has been stable at around 380ppm for a thousand years and then it started suddenly rising. We know how much we are adding and it matches the rise. Yet you say its insignificant.
Not convinced

 

Sorry, but we don't know how much we are adding. And the disagreement is not about increasing CO2, but rather the cause of the increase. If rising temperature can explain the increase (as above) then it seems to me that Occam's Razor makes the deus ex machina of human influence superfluous.

 

Of course we know how much we produce, we're constantly told what percentage comes from transport etc.
If temperature can explain the increase in Co2 I'm very pleased, but if the increase is Co2 release is due to that then the human released would sit on top.
What does NASA say about the paper?

 

deleted

 

No, we do not. We know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere and we have inferred the source based on the greenhouse gas paradigm. The paper refutes the paradigm.

 

Yeah that's the other 1%.

 

Sorry, why don't we know the output of an average petrol vehicle, diesel lorry, burning coal/oil/gas?

 

We can measure the output of anything from anything, but we can't say how much remains in the atmosphere or for how long. Meanwhile, the Koutsoyiannis research result indicates that the overwhelming preponderance of atmospheric CO2 is not the result of human activity.

 

Oh so now you admit we do know how much Co2 Man creates, but claim Man Made Co2 mysteriously disappears leaving only clean natural Co2.
Ahh No.
There are massive assumptions in the conclusions of Koutsoyiannis research in your article.

 

You missed the important part: we can't say how much remains in the atmosphere or for how long. That's why the human-origin CO2 volume in the atmosphere has been inferred but not measured -- because it couldn't be. The crucial point in Koutsoyiannis is to identify a marker that permits such a measurement for the first time.

 

I didn't miss it. Your implication that growth of Co2 in the atmosphere comes from nature and remains in the atmosphere to be dutifully counted while the KNOWN Co2 from human beings conveniently falls to earth or disappears.
It requires a stretch of imagination beyond the believable.

 

Per Koutsoyiannis, there is no known (or very little) CO2 from human activity in the atmosphere.

 

Now you're just repeating yourself.

 

He's the first (only) to create a way to distinguish natural from man made CO2.

 

That's where the assumption happens. That assumption that C13 simple ceased to exist. No further investigation required.

 

Oh really?
"In terms of the carbon cycle (point 1 above), several physical, chemical, biochemical and human processes are involved in it. The human CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels have largely increased since the beginning of the industrial age. However, the global temperature increase began succeeding the Little Ice Period, at a time when human CO2 emissions were very low. To cast light on the problem, we examine the issue of CO2 emissions vs. atmospheric temperature further in the Supplementary Information, where we provide evidence that they are not correlated with each other. The outgassing from the sea is also highlighted sometimes in the literature among the climate-related mechanisms. On the other hand, the role of the biosphere and biochemical reactions is often downplayed, along with the existence of complex interactions and feedback. This role can be summarized in the following points, examined in detail and quantified in Appendix A.1.

• Terrestrial and maritime respiration and decay are responsible for the vast majority of CO2 emissions [32], Figure 5.12.
• Overall, natural processes of the biosphere contribute 96% to the global carbon cycle, the rest, 4%, being human emissions (which were even lower in the past [33]).
• The biosphere is more productive at higher temperatures, as the rates of biochemical reactions increase with temperature, which leads to increasing natural CO2 emission [2].
• Additionally, a higher atmospheric CO2 concentration makes the biosphere more productive via the so-called carbon fertilization effect, thus resulting in greening of the Earth [34,35], i.e., amplification of the carbon cycle, to which humans also contribute through crops and land-use management [36]."

 

99% of scientists agree Climate Change is occurring, and that it is caused by the activities of mankind. The voice of that consensus is the IPCC. They represent the most recent and informed studies of Climatologists around the world. The latest Assessment Report of the IPCC is AR6. When a Climate Denier references something from the other 1%, they should cite the chapter and page of AR6 that their study is attempting to disprove.

The way these posts are being presented now is most analogous to flat-earthers. More than 99% of scientists believe the earth is round. So if a flat-earther is trying to make a case, he/she should consult the current references and evidence, and attempt to disprove them, one-by-one.

 

Defenders of a challenged orthodoxy prefer to attack the dissenters rather than discuss the substance.

Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003
By Michael Crichton
Aliens Cause Global Warming
Thursday, January 31st, 2019

. . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . .

 

Jeez do you never tire of this misleading garbage. Yes it warmed back up after the Little Ice age (The clue is in the name) The reasons it warmed back up are well known. A solar maunder and volcanic activity caused it and then ended. So what is the cause of the current rapid heating? Don't be shy.
And again. Where is all the Co2 man has been pumping into the atmosphere gone? You keep avoiding this simple question. I mean even if you don't know surely Koutsoyiannis knows. Come on spill the beans, where is it hiding.

Are you actually claiming Co2 is not a greenhouse gas?

 

Tsk tsk. When you cast aspersions you are implying that you can't counter the argument.
There simply isn't (and never was) much man made CO2 in the atmosphere.
CO2's greenhouse effect is negligible.