The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

PD made a post about the CO2 to temperature relationship in during the Phanerozoic.

If you want to see the relationship in the last 10,000 years you need only look at the GISP2 ice cores.



Simply put there is no relationship.

Now kindly bug off.

 

What has CO2 caused? and where is your evidence? defining it as cause is false and no one has provided any evidence. Providing papers with theory minus experiment is not science. My perception of all of this is that the experiments were performed and didn't produce the models the way the hypothesis wanted them to. so throw out the experiments and just make it up! Yep, there you go. CO2 follows temperature son!

 

The CO2 temperature relationship is easily proven in a lab. But like all laboratory result it becomes far harder to prove a significant effect in the real world where there are many other variables and feedbacks. Medical science alone is full of examples wheres compound showed promise in the laboratory but failed when tested in the real environment.

Warmmongers dont get this however. That think that the scientific method stops at the promising controlled laboratory experiment.

 

For me, if they want to banter about, there is but one way to shut me up, that is to provide the experiment that proved the hypothesis that moved to the theory. You know, the one that validates or not, that an increase of 120 PPM will cause an increase of temperature at xxdegree C.

 

Trying to draw any meaningful conclusions from such a chart would be foolish. Do you really think that atmospheric CO2 was a straight line as depicted in this graph? Also, the 2000-2009 average temperature at the GISP2 site was about -28ºC which is about 3ºC above what your graph shows, and warmer than anything for the last 11,000 years.

If you look a little further back, you start to see something interesting.



Look even further back and the relationship becomes almost obvious.

 

You've been presented with the evidence. Your refusal to accept it is not our problem. If CO2 does not affect global temperature then someone should be able to produce a climate model that excludes CO2 while performing better than climate models which include it. I eagerly await your results.

 

Yeah I see a first order temperature leading CO2 relationship. Causality is not reciprocal. The causal relationship of temperature rise/fall modulating CO2 is well established. The stretch is trying to argue that CO2 is modulating temperature in any significant way.

 

97% of modern climate models with their heavy CO2 forcing have failed.

 

As opposed to 100% of climate models which exclude CO2.

 

Let me help others better understand your arguments.

 

You would have to understand my arguments first before you could explain them to me. Despite repeated (erroneous) claims that climate models are inaccurate, nobody has produced a competing climate model that is more accurate and does not depend on human CO2 emissions. Claiming that a scientific theory is wrong is pointless unless you can produce a better theory to replace it. Despite the fact that Newtonian mechanics couldn't explain the precession of Mercury, it was still the prevailing model until Relativity came along. Now are you going to produce an alternate climate model, or not?

 

Josh doesn't pretend to be an expert. And Mr. Cook has way more personal issues than just being a cartoonist.



You backed the wrong horse bowerbird. The president did too.

 

Oooh! Look someone can PhotoShop (badly) AND invoke Godwin's law at the same time.

 

alternative theories? You are silly. See you have no proof of your's and we have no need of a theory since we don't believe there is any issue. So what is it theory wise you think we should supply you and your bunches?

And funny you're waiting on a natural event to occur. Oh my!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

 

Only when they're not confirming Goodwin's law.

 

Joannenova - you are kidding right?? Nothing on that website resembles the truth let alone any slander against Cook,
Well, attempted slander see we have this thing called a democracy in Australia and if you want to dress up as a character to take the Mickey out of someone you can. Same as you can have a job as a cartoonist and still be respected as a professional

However the very detail in that photo suggests PhotoShop - pity the denialists did not find time to make the hat fit properly

 

Hah, what a kick. Yet still no evidence or proof, so again, where is that experiment at Mr. Duh you don fink so?

 

Support your assertion that the Photoshop was made by skeptics and not by Cook. The first step would be to find a statement where Cook denies that the picture was found on his blog. Otherwise you are making (*)(*)(*)(*) up. Again....

 

Well duh, of course it was photoshopped you silly person. The question is who did it, and my money is on the man himself Cook!!!!!

 

Any scale is good for a logarithm.

You're comparing apples to oranges. My graph is temp vs. CO2, yours is temp vs. time. But I guarantee you that there are superior models of temp vs. time than the fourteen-parameter monstrousity you've got.

Since you seem not to have learned the difference between bias and residuals, I think I'll just wait until you graduate from primary school. Until then, your writing is meaningless in a statistical context.

So now the Beer-Lambert Law is a "pet theory"? Science, science, dost thou I deny thee? Let me count the ways ...

Any other scientific laws you want to deny while we're at it? Planck? Stefan-Boltzmann? Conservation of energy? Just let me know where your ignorance stops.

But you're not an average reader, Windy. You're a denier. Sometimes it takes boldface to get your attention.

Still utterly unaware of what "bias" means in statistics .... another failure for Denierstan Middle School.

Of course you can. It's done routinely in (for just one example) astronomy, where a high-resolution light curve can be easily derived by combining low-resolution time series. Something else they didn't teach you at Denierstan Middle School.

It's not fraud at all. It's just math. But it's the kind of math you don't know, so you simply assume that nobody else in the world can possibly know it either. And your assumption is simply wrong.

Geez, you can't even get the arithmetic right. If you have a single timeseries at 100 year resolution, you will only have 2 datapoints in 200 years. But if you have 100 timeseries at 100 year resolution, you will get 200 datapoints in 200 years. And from that aggregate, you can indeed derive a composite dataset with a resolution that is much, much higher than 100 years.

Not fraud. Ignorance: yours.

So when the Windigo of May 23 said, "The forcing of CO2 should be observed in the longer record", and you're now admitting that the forcing of CO2 actually is observed in the longer record, you're essentially agreeing with me that the Windigo of May 23 was completely and totally wrong.

Thanks for that.

So once again you agree that the Windigo of May 23 was a total ignoramus on this point.

 

Ah, still tryig to fit that square peg in a round hole eh?

 

No not at all. Logarithms are better represented on larger scales. On a short scale they are indistinguishable from a linear function.

Graphing temperature relative to CO2 and relative to time has little difference. The exponential nature of CO2 is so slight that to graph time or CO2 is essentially the same.

Bias is how far your residuals differ from 0.

Yes believing that the system which you cant model will behave exactly as your theory is flawed. The climate is a black box. Yes Beer-Lambert Law is in play but so are many other factors, many of which you don't know or poorly understand. You cant assume that the function of your system follows your bias. In any kind of systems analysis you have to throw your bias out the window and look only at what the data says.

You have your input, CO2. You have your output, temperature. You have no idea what the function for you system is. You have to look at the input and the output. The system is a black box. You are not allowed to assume what is in the box.

No your posting style is childish and a blight on the eyes.

I don't know what you think bias means. In R2 analysis it is how much your residual(observed-modeled) differs from 0. As usual I think you are lying. You dont know that it means and you are just hoping that I'm wrong. We have been around this rodeo before. The key is you dont define it yourself you just say I'm wrong because you are guessing.

I know what they do in astronomy. That has nothing to do with paleoclimatology proxy analysis. You are committing fraud.

No its fraud. The resolution of the Marcott reconstruction does not allow a direct comparison to the instrumental record. Breaking the the reconstruction up into 20 year increments doesn't increase its resolution. You cant create data where none exists.

If you have 100 year resolution with a value of 100 and you break it up into a 20 year then its just 100, 100, 100, 100, 100. Its still 100 resolution. You are just committing fraud.

No you cannot because this is not like astronomy where you are looking at light from different angles to make a composite. I'm sorry that you actually think you are correct but you are not.

The ignorance is your if you think you can get 20 year resolution out of old ice cores. Maybe you should publish this method it would be a major accomplishment. Of course you wont publish it because its fraud and you know it.

Lets get down to bras tacks here. There is no chance that you poor debater have found some ingenious method to get 20 year resolution out of ice cores. Scientists have been trying for decades to squeeze resolution out of ice cores and now on this forum you claim to have invented a method to get 20 year resolution.

I call fraud. If you insist that your method isnt fraud then publish it. You will be famous.

No you just read what you want to read. Temperature forces CO2 that is well established in the record. CO2 forcing temperature not so much.

No you just have poor reading comprehension.