Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade?

[trysail]

And that's why you might as well be saying the Earth is flat. If you're agreeing that C02 is a greenhouse gas, the more we pump into the atmosphere the warmer it will get.

N'est-ce pas?


http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20AndCO2.gif


http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017ee9f9c395970d-pi

​

If two functions are not correlated then there is good reason to believe they are independent. Apply this to historical climate data and the correlation of global average temperature with CO2 concentration is:
(a) 1910 to 1940 poor correlation
(b) 1940 to 1970 zero or negative correlation
(c) 1970 to 1997 good correlation
(d) 1997 to 2013 zero correlation

What does the above imply? The relation is either very odd or discontinuous, or could be called an on/off relationship.

-Alexander Biggs

When it was warming, the reason was CO2 and climate was simple;
now that it’s not warming, the reason isn’t known and climate is complex​

.

Where's the missing ice??


http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg



​

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

N'est-ce pas?


http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20AndCO2.gif


http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017ee9f9c395970d-pi

​

When it was warming, the reason was CO2 and climate was simple;
now that it’s not warming, the reason isn’t known and climate is complex​

.

Where's the missing ice??


http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg



​

You seem to want to avoid the issue I'm raising.

C02 is a greenhouse gas. The more of it we pump into the atmosphere, the warmer it will get. Feel free to quibble about how much C02 will raise the temperature how much, that's not my point.

Unless you don't think that C02 is a greenhouse gas.

 

[trysail]

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/science_method.png


​

 

[Que]

Correlation is not causation....that is hard enough to explain to the cultists..

...then they refuse to see that NO EVIDENCE OF CORRELATION definitely doesn't "prove" their point.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/science_method.png


​

You're still avoiding the question.

When using the scientific method it shows that humans are causing climate change.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Correlation is not causation....that is hard enough to explain to the cultists..

...then they refuse to see that NO EVIDENCE OF CORRELATION definitely doesn't "prove" their point.

Correlation between an increase in something that warms the planet, and a warming planet aren't connected?

Do you think that C02 isn't a greenhouse gas?

Just like there's no evidence that there's a cover up at the IRS, but that hasn't stopped you from insisting there is. The difference here is an overwhelming amount of peer reviewed evidence.

 

[trysail]

You're still avoiding the question.

When using the scientific method it shows that humans are causing climate change.

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


Have some more Kool-Aid.


​

http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20AndCO2.gif


http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017ee9f9c395970d-pi

​

If two functions are not correlated then there is good reason to believe they are independent. Apply this to historical climate data and the correlation of global average temperature with CO2 concentration is:
(a) 1910 to 1940 poor correlation
(b) 1940 to 1970 zero or negative correlation
(c) 1970 to 1997 good correlation
(d) 1997 to 2013 zero correlation

What does the above imply? The relation is either very odd or discontinuous, or could be called an on/off relationship.

-Alexander Biggs

When it was warming, the reason was CO2 and climate was simple;
now that it’s not warming, the reason isn’t known and climate is complex​

.

Where's the missing ice??


http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg



​

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


Have some more Kool-Aid.


​

http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20AndCO2.gif


http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017ee9f9c395970d-pi

​

When it was warming, the reason was CO2 and climate was simple;
now that it’s not warming, the reason isn’t known and climate is complex​

.

Where's the missing ice??


http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg



​

It's hard science, not Kool-Aid.

It's a very simple question, do you think C02 is a greenhouse gas?

 

[trysail]

It's hard science, not Kool-Aid.

It's a very simple question, do you think C02 is a greenhouse gas?

Let us know when you stop confusing a lab experiment with climate. Until such time, you're not qualified to discuss the subject.


​

 

[AngeloMichael]

I can't pretend to understand completely all these graphs and shit and at the risk of sounding like a Republican, I'm not a scientist.

But when the scientific community is saying 99-1* anthropomorphic climate change is occurring, I'm going to take on faith their assessment. I also accept that scientific progress can and will necessitate changes in established consensuses but unless/until that happens the rational layman position must hold man made global warming is happening.



*Unless you count "scientists" in the pocket of big oil which are much, much, much deeper than the pockets of grant sources. I also don't accept errors such as the "hockey stick" graph as conspiratorial but more an error due to expected and rushed results, the current evidence still holds for anthropomorphic climate change.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Let us know when you stop confusing the Tyndall gas effect with climate. Until such time, you're not qualified to discuss the subject.


​

My understanding of something is stopping you from answering a yes or no question?

Just keep in mind that you're the one running away from the conversation.

Care to show your scientific credentials.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I can't pretend to understand completely all these graphs and shit and at the risk of sounding like a Republican, I'm not a scientist.

When Trysail is on the losing end of an argument, she traditionally falls back on posting a large multicolor graph of dubious value. The more she fails, the bigger the graph.

 

[trysail]

My understanding of something is stopping you from answering a yes or no question?

Just keep in mind that you're the one running away from the conversation.

Care to show your scientific credentials.

As you show no interest or ability to distinguish between climate and a lab experiment, it's pointless to continue.


Since you're not interested in evidence or data, it's obvious that you're not interested in climate, science or scientific method.



http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20AndCO2.gif


http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017ee9f9c395970d-pi

​

If two functions are not correlated then there is good reason to believe they are independent. Apply this to historical climate data and the correlation of global average temperature with CO2 concentration is:
(a) 1910 to 1940 poor correlation
(b) 1940 to 1970 zero or negative correlation
(c) 1970 to 1997 good correlation
(d) 1997 to 2013 zero correlation

What does the above imply? The relation is either very odd or discontinuous, or could be called an on/off relationship.

-Alexander Biggs

When it was warming, the reason was CO2 and climate was simple;
now that it’s not warming, the reason isn’t known and climate is complex​

.

Where's the missing ice??


http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg



​

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

When Trysail is on the losing end of an argument, she traditionally falls back on posting a large multicolor graph of dubious value. The more she fails, the bigger the graph.

She'd have to actually participate to lose.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

As you show no interest or ability to distinguish between climate and the Tyndall gas effect, it's pointless to continue.


Since you're not interested in evidence or data, it's obvious that you're not interested in climate, science or scientific method.






​

Feel free to join the conversation & explain the difference.

 

[Disgustipated]

Hey... SgtSpiderMan. .. Quit quoting the other idiot. No one cares about the refuted graphics it posts. Fuck.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The Trysail method: post huge meaningless graphs, stretch the screen, and refuse to answer even the most basic of questions.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Hey... SgtSpiderMan. .. Quit quoting the other idiot. No one cares about the refuted graphics it posts. Fuck.

I've stopped including the graphs.

 

[trysail]

Hey... SgtSpiderMan. .. Quit quoting the other idiot. No one cares about the refuted graphics it posts. Fuck.

You're the definition of the word dumbfuck.

To get to your level would require the use of three letter words and crayons.


​

 

[Ishmael]

You're the definition of the word dumbfuck.

To get to your level would require the use of three letter words and crayons.


​

Chalk, soft chalk. You give it crayons and you'll have to repaint the whole damn place.

Ishmael

 

[colddiesel]

I don't see the point in getting hot under the collar about whether climate change is man made or not. I do think, however, that if at all possible we should minimise pollutants in the atmosphere anyway. The problem with the argument you support Trysail is that it is used as an excuse not to keep our global backyard clean.

One undeniable fact is that the area of sea ice and most glacier lengths have decreased enormously over the last 30 years. That may be an aberation , it may be within the normal range; but in neither event can we merely ignore it.

My training was as a mathematician and what I will assert is that when you get very slow possibly episodic changes, if you wait until the results are in to your scientific satisfaction, it will be far too late to rectify anything - whether you want to or not.

Hey Trysail

Ishtat put these points to you way way back but you didn't respond.

Simplified, he is asking you. Is it good policy to pollute the planet and its atmosphere in the hope that nothing untoward occurs? Or do we wait for the matter to be proved one way or another by which time rectification measures will be too late?

I have no problem accepting that it may take 100 years of data to prove the point, but equally see no value in turning the planet into a cess pit in the mean time, which seems to be your policy.

 

[phrodeau]

http://www.c2es.org/facts-figures/trends/co2-temp

The recent increase in concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the result of human activities, mainly the burning of fossil fuels. As the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, so has the average surface temperature of the Earth.
The relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and surface temperature is shown here for the past 130 years.

http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/tempco-2.png

And here is the relationship to CO2 and warming over 400,000 years.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif

Here is what has been happening to sea ice volumes:

http://www.cejournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/arc_antarc_1979_2007.gif

 

[Que]

Hey Trysail

Ishtat put these points to you way way back but you didn't respond.

Simplified, he is asking you. Is it good policy to pollute the planet and its atmosphere in the hope that nothing untoward occurs? Or do we wait for the matter to be proved one way or another by which time rectification measures will be too late?

I have no problem accepting that it may take 100 years of data to prove the point, but equally see no value in turning the planet into a cess pit in the mean time, which seems to be your policy.

You are conflating CO2 with "pollution". It is a green house gas. naturally occuring, non-toxic, and its level is rising. The effect of various levels of greenhouse gass levels is UNKNOWN. So far the rising levels are NOT correlated with the (extremely modest) temperature increases which may or may not be part of normal climatic cycles.

IF temperatures were to rise TEN TIMES the amount seen tha last 50 years it is a fallacy to say it would be detrimental to human habitation of the planet. It would INCREASE food production.

A MUCH better question is should we stand OUR economy on its head over a lot of UNKNOWNS.

If you are not DEMANDING fast-tracking of nuclear power you are not serious about CO2 reduction.

As to the charts Phrodeau posted as I was posting this, typically they are for the mathematically illiterate... You cant have one mantissa with micro-graduations while the graph you are allegedly "correlating' is an order of 1/3 to 1/2 increase. MORE than misleading. But it sure does make impressive stained glass for the church of the holy climate.

None of which you are likely to believe.

 

[Disgustipated]

Chalk, soft chalk. You give it crayons and you'll have to repaint the whole damn place.

Ishmael

You're a fucking idiot. Tryfail posts old graphics along with giant colored fonts. He's the epitome of crayon posting.

 

[phrodeau]

You are conflating CO2 with "pollution". It is a green house gas. naturally occuring, non-toxic, and its level is rising. The effect of various levels of greenhouse gass levels is UNKNOWN. So far the rising levels are NOT correlated with the (extremely modest) temperature increases which may or may not be part of normal climatic cycles.

IF temperatures were to rise TEN TIMES the amount seen tha last 50 years it is a fallacy to say it would be detrimental to human habitation of the planet. It would INCREASE food production.

A MUCH better question is should we stand OUR economy on its head over a lot of UNKNOWNS.

If you are not DEMANDING fast-tracking of nuclear power you are not serious about CO2 reduction.

As to the charts Phrodeau posted as I was posting this, typically they are for the mathematically illiterate... You cant have one mantissa with micro-graduations while the graph you are allegedly "correlating' is an order of 1/3 to 1/2 increase. MORE than misleading. But it sure does make impressive stained glass for the church of the holy climate.

None of which you are likely to believe.

That's an utterly bogus argument, since you didn't make one peep about Trysail's graphs, loser.