The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

And again, the issue I have is that CO2 does not influence the temperature cycle. So for me, the levels of CO2 are what they are based on natural cycles. For me, it is not concerning. And, like I've stated over and over, there is no evidence to support the influence. I'm happy to reconsider that affect, if I could see the proof. I need the proof to be convinced otherwise. Telling me theoreticals is unimportant, because the observed data to support the theories isn't there.

 

We're good then:

 

What the heck is this chart? and can you explain how this is proof of anything?

 

The problem of course is that the direct forcing of CO2 isn't a much debate topic. Both sides agree its about 1C per doubling. As always it is an argument of feedbacks so arguing for the greenhouse gas effect or CO2 role is a false argument.

 

Not at all there are some clear points in your graph where the correlation breaks down. Temperatures remain level from about 310-340. This corresponds to the flat temeprature trend in the mid 20th century and the present.

You use a linear trend to try and hide the decades of flattening.

The fact of the matter is that temperature has only risen for half of the temperature record.

1910-1945 and 1976-2002



So for a 164 year record temperatures only correlate to CO2 for about 61 years or about 37% of the time.

That is not a very good correlation at all. That is why warmmongers stoop to linear correlation which is the most childish and amateur correlation model there is.

 

Not so sure about this one. I would rather see a study done by a University that studies agriculture...like Purdue...Auburn...or even Tuskegee.

There bis also one in British Columbia that comes to mind.
Many causes for nutrient lapses in crops...soil for one.

 

If you are still arguing, if owls exist, and if they did, would they give a hoot, you can argue, against the greenhouse effect or forcing, by CO2, even during natural climatic shifts, when CO2 always has to increase, to relieve glacial periods, which happens in one quick hurry, in regular cycles, of atmospheric CO2, falling, over 80K years, to 180 ppm, lead temps, down, slowly, until Milankovitch cycles trigger warming and release of CO2 and CH4, from melting perennial ice, whereupon Earth's surface temps shoot up, FAST, to follow natural CO2 migration, to 280 ppm.

You have to be remarkably self-deluded, to consider the greenhouse effect or atmospheric CO2 concentration, as a topic, for debate, but hey, if you are into self-delusion, and there's a pack of your dubious peers, to encourage your behavior, hey now!

It's the neo-con rwnj happy hour!

I

 

The problem with this thinking of course is that in the long term CO2 has ranged upwards of 7000 ppm. The relationship between CO2 and temperature breaks down on longer time frames. This leads to the simple conclusion that your poorly worded theory is just CO2 following temperature on the first order and not being a significant cause of temperature changes.

 

Where do you find this stuff? I know, it has something to do with Chinese eh?

- - - Updated - - -

rehashed and rehashed, I'm sure we'll be rehashing some more. His Chinese references tell it all.

 

In science, a theory is much more useful than just evidence.

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

 

Did you read the first paragraph in the link you provided? A theory requires evidence, from the link:


"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."

So when you throw out a theory, then that implies testing has been done according to your provided definition. So again, where are all the test results that prove out the hypothesis?

 

I should add that bobs hypothesis also breaks down in the short term as well.



Bob's theory is based more on bad data than anything else. When we get out to 100,000 year time frames the resolution in ice cores breaks breaks down. While it may look steady that is only because of low resolution. You can rest assured that in all of those time frames temperature was behaving just as it has during the Holocene up and down not constant in anyway.

 

You asked for evidence that temperature follows CO2 increases. Clearly it does.

 

Not true. jc456 has never accepted that CO2 causes any temperature increase. He's the one you should be arguing with. And he's not alone, either, as there are a lot of idiots on your side who agree with him. (Google "sky dragon slayers" for a few examples. Ever wonder how come the worst idiots are all on your side?)

 

Correlations always break down if you throw out enough data. Climate deniers are good that that. What they're not good at is explaining all the data.

Climate deniers are also not good at math. Take a look at that regression equation, windy. Are you really prepared to defend your false statement that it's linear? Or will we actually get an admission of error when it's as plain as the nose on your face?

So says the guy who posts a graph with no less than six linear regressions on it. Must be pretty childish there in Denierstan, Mr. amateur.

 

Over longer time frames, the Sun was a lot cooler than it was now, too. Have you included that in your thought process? (Answer: thinking? In Denierstan? Perish the thought!)

Utterly and totally false. Because if you include the effect of solar activity over longer time frames, CO2 follows temperature quite well.

Royer, D. L., Berner, R. A., & Park, J. (2007). Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years. Nature, 446(7135), 530-532.

 

Actually, it's your theory that is based on bad data more than anything else. Because as usual, the denizens of Denierstan are totally incapable of understanding the difference between global temperatures and local temperatures. Otherwise, they wouldn't even bother to post crap like this chart and try to pass it off as global temperatures. Otherwise, they might actually do a literature search and find actual global temperatures for the last 10,000 years that have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

But OMG! That would prove that their puppet-masters at Denier Central Command have been lying to them this entire time! Heavens!

 

I'm not the one throwing out data. You are applying a linear trend on what is a clear 3rd order polynomial throwing out 2 orders of data. I think you need to look in the mirror before you accuse others of throwing out data. I'm trying to preserve data. Linear trends are inherently lossy especially when the wave form you a trending isn't linear.

I'm quite good at math. Natural log for the scale you have used is linear. You are only outsmarting yourself.

If you are going to use linear regressions you use more so you lose less data the closer you are to the actual wave form. This is something you learn in that place you never went to, college, its called numerical analysis, its a basic college course that I'm 100% sure you have never taken.

This is why you think that one big regression is better than small regressions. You have no formal schooling.

If you bothered to look at the standard deviation of my stepped regression vs. your regression you would find that mine is far closer to the actual wave form because I actually know what I'm doing. You do not.

 

It amazing that you still think you can get away with posting that crap after the studies own author admitted that the uptick was bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

In case you need to be reminded.

"Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

 

Not needed or did you fail at math once again you fail to understand direct, first order, and second order relationshiips. More proof that you never went to school. The forcing of CO2 should be observed in the longer record regardless of the direct forcing of the sun. When CO2 went from 4500ppm to 7000ppm we should see a temperature response we did not.

No again you don't know what you are talking about. I said on the 1st order which means that CO2 follows changes in the sun however temperature and absolute CO2 don't have a strong relationship.

 

Utter hogwash. Third-order polynomial? Can you spell "overfitting"? Did they even teach you how to test for overfitting at Denierstan Middle School? And in what way is model fitting (of any kind) "throwing out data"? You're not even making sense.

And since I didn't use a linear fit, your criticism is completely invalid.

So Mr. Math doesn't know the difference between linear and logarithmic. Brilliant.

"Natural log for the scale you have used is linear." is certainly one of the most boneheaded, meaningless, and idiotic statements you've ever made. And that's saying something. Take a look at the y-axis, Mr. Math. It's linear. Now take a look at the regression equation. It's NOT linear. Geeeeeeez.

Actually, I'm 100% sure you've either never taken it, or have forgotten all you learned there. Otherwise you would have used proper nomenclature in that sentence.

Still unable (or unwilling) to test for overfitting, eh? Your innumeracy is appalling.

Thank you, Mr. Overfit, for a brilliant exercise in how-not-to-fit-data.

- - - Updated - - -

It's amazing that you can't read citations. Because if you could, you would have discovered that this graph doesn't use Marcott in the 20th century. Which means your criticism is BS.

- - - Updated - - -

And it is. See Royer. Better yet, read it.

Citation?

Which is effectively admitting that they do have a strong relationship if the Sun is constant. Thanks for that!

 

No I'm not making sense to you. There is a difference. It doesn't make sense to you because you cant understand it.

Natural logs on a the short scale you used are almost perfectly linear. Your graph shows as much.



You cant tell the difference between A*ln(X) or some B*X, B<A, on the scale used. The curve of a natural log only becomes significantly different from a linear function on much larger scales.

No I know the difference. I know enough to know that on short scales a log is linear. You do not.

Take a look at your tend. Its linear. There is no significant difference between A*ln(X) and B*(X) on such a short scale. It takes a much larger scale for a natural log and a linear function to significantly diverge. You graph runs from 280-400. That isn't even a doubling. It takes multiple doublings before a natural log and linear function have a significant divergence.

Think what you want. At lease I can keep my cool and don't have to post a bunch of italics and bold that hurt everyone eyes to make believe that I'm smarter than you.


Still unable (or unwilling) to test for overfitting, eh? Your innumeracy is appalling.

Really dividing a 164 year record into 5 is over fitting in your book? At what point does it become over fitting in your book? 2?

Then you admit that its a fraud. Grafting the temperature record onto the end of a low resolution proxy reconstruction is fraud! You admit that you committed fraud!

Lets see waht Dr. Mann has to say about your fraud of grafting a temperature record onto a proxy reconstruction.

Grafting temperature record onto a low resolution proxy is like taking a grainy low resolution picture and then drawing something on the picture. It has no validity what so ever and is fraud.

I did it is a first order relationship.

No at all you are making a logical fallacy. Just because there is a coloration does not mean that cause and effect are reciprocal. It is well known that CO2 follows temperature for well understood reasons, and temperature follows changes in the sun.

 

It seems you and the Flat Earth Society have something in common: neither of you understand that any curve on a short enough scale looks vaguely linear. And apparently neither of you understand how such appearances can be deceiving.

Of course you can. Just look at the correlation coefficient. (Another thing they didn't teach you in Denierstan Middle School.) Care to guess which correlation is better?

Riiiight. Thanks for the lesson, Mr. Flat Earth.

Since they're so close to being equivalent, the scientifically correct procedure is to use the one that's theoretically justified. Which, in this case, is the log function. But hey, since you're a denier, doing what's scientifically correct is completely off your radar screen.

Rest assured, it would certainly take a lot more than that for anyone to believe that you're smarter than me.

It certainly is. Dividing data into five linear ranges requires no less than fourteen independent parameters: two for each line segment, and one for each breakpoint. A single linear (or logarithmic) model has just two parameters. This is a classic example of chasing noise instead of describing trend.

I can always tell when I've won the argument when my opponents are reduced to blatant lying about my position. It means their arguments are intellectually bankrupt, and their souls are morally bankrupt.

Nonsense. I reduced both the HADCRUT temperature data and the Anderson proxy data to 20 year resolution, the same as the Marcott proxy data. You lose, Mr. Bankrupt.

If you did in fact read it, you would now know that Royer covers the entire Phanerozoic. Which means your complaint about not covering a long enough record is completely invalid.

If that is the case, why has the general trend of Phanerozoic temperatures been downward, when the general trend of Solar output during the Phanerozoic has been upward?

 

280-400 is not a short scale just not a good scale for a logarithm.

I guarantee you that my stepped regression has a better R2 and a better bias. Your linear model has a high bias especially at the beginning of the curve.

Given the bias of your graph I would argue that it would never pass peer review unless you hid the data like Dr. Mann did. I beleive he calls his residuals, aka the bias, his "dirty laundry".

Oh give it a rest.

No the scientifically correct procedure is to do what the data says. Using the one that fits your pet theory is how bias works its way into science.

Your excessive use of bold, italics, fonts, and size shows everyone that I'm smarter than you. The average reader views such things as childish. Because well it is childish.

It does describe the trend better. As I said mine will have a better R2 and a better bias. Yours has an okay R2 but a huge bias.


I can always tell when I've won the argument when my opponents are reduced to blatant lying about my position. It means their arguments are intellectually bankrupt, and their souls are morally bankrupt.

Now that is nonsense. You cant reduce the data in the Marcott reconstruction to a 20 year resolution. Most of them, ice cores, simply do not have 20 year resolution. Now you an lie. You can try and break the low resolution data into 20 year data points but that is just fraud. For example if you have 100 year resolution over a 200 year period you have 10 for the first 100 years and 20 for the second. Breaking it up or smoothing it is not 20 year resolution.

Its just fraud.

First of all you haven't read what I wrote Royer finds a first order relationship with CO2 and cold periods. That is to be expected and proves absolutely nothing. He tries to argue that the decreased CO2 has extra forcing but he cant prove it because CO2 is following temperature not leading it.



Doesn't seem to be a strong relationship at all. CO2 follows temperature on the first order but to say that CO2 is causing temperature changes is a stretch of logic.

 

Why are you focusing on climate hundreds of millions of years in the past when humans have only been around about 2 million years, and civilization only about 10,000 years? Nobody questions that climate operated totally different that far in the past, but over the last 3 million years it has been dominated by glacial and interglacials cycles. Shouldn't we be more concerned about how climate has responded to changes in CO2 during that period?