Commentary #6: Global Warming

[Chadillac]

Karl has a couple of comments on a couple of new studies to have hit "the literature"

Ah, Proof. Do They Realize It? in [Market-Ticker-Nad]

I don't know who Karl is but the first reference isn't even in English and I think his conclusions about the second reference are horrible. Karl states the following:

Second, there is a new study out on an attempted reconstruction of the planet's mean surface temperature and it proves man isn't the prime driver, simply because man wasn't there.

That simply is not true. You could say it proves man WASN'T the prime driver for climate change before humans existed, but that is really stating the obvious. It does not prove or disprove man isn't the primary driver now nor is it even addressed in this study. What the study does conclude is:

PhanDA GMST exhibits a strong relationship with atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Fig. 4), demonstrating that CO2 has been the dominant forcing controlling global climate variations across the Phanerozoic.

So if global climate is strongly correlated with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, then how do we know the sudden increase in CO2 over the last century has been due to humans or some other natural cause?

1) We can do a rough estimation to know that humans are emitting tens of billions of CO2 into the atmosphere every year by burning fossil fuels.

Global Carbon Budget | Fossil CO2 emissions at record high in 2023

2) Without getting deep into photosynthesis, half-lives of radioactive isotopes, and beta decay, CO2 emission sources have their own unique carbon "fingerprint". This fingerprint is the ratio of the different carbon isotopes (C-12, C-13, and C-14). By monitoring the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere, scientists can determine the source of the excess CO2. Spoiler: it's humans.

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans? | NOAA Climate.gov

[Mark Rippetoe]

Please demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 varies directly with surface temperature.

[Chadillac]

Please demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 varies directly with surface temperature.

Just a moment...

I would clarify that this study does not show a direct linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global mean surface temperature (GMST), but rather concludes atmospheric CO2, as opposed to things like solar luminosity, has been the dominant control for GMST changes during the Phanerozoic.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I would clarify that this study does not show a direct linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global mean surface temperature (GMST), but rather concludes atmospheric CO2, as opposed to things like solar luminosity, has been the dominant control for GMST changes during the Phanerozoic.

I disagree.

[Chadillac]

I disagree.

You can disagree, but with r-values as high as 0.97 and P<0.01, the chances of you being wrong is practically a statistical guarantee.

[Jason Donaldson]

For sake of argument, suppose there is a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature. How would that correlation demonstrate causation, and in what direction? And how would it demonstrate those two correlating factors as the only ones, vs., say, both being related to one or more other factors?

[Chadillac]

For sake of argument, suppose there is a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature. How would that correlation demonstrate causation, and in what direction?

Correlation vs causation can be determined through a Casual Analysis.

First, is there a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and GMST?

Second, do changes in global temperature occur after CO2 level changes?

Third, what mechanisms are there for atmospheric CO2 to influence global temperatures?

Fourth, what mechanisms are there for global temperatures to influence CO2?

All of these questions have been answered in many, many peer reviewed studies.

And how would it demonstrate those two correlating factors as the only ones, vs., say, both being related to one or more other factors?

GMST is dependent on several variables, not just atmospheric CO2. This includes solar luminosity, volcano eruptions, the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, greenhouse gasses besides CO2, etc. Big changes to those variable have caused drastic temperature changes on Earth in the past. Luckily, those variable have stayed pretty constant for the entire existence of Homo sapiens. That is until the last ~100 years when atmospheric CO2 levels have gone from <300 to 417 ppm. In Earth’s timeframe this is a blink of an eye and basically represents a step change in CO2 and is the only explanation for the current sudden increase in GMST.

[Mark Rippetoe]

GMST is dependent on several variables, not just atmospheric CO2. This includes solar luminosity, volcano eruptions, the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, greenhouse gasses besides CO2, etc. Big changes to those variable have caused drastic temperature changes on Earth in the past. Luckily, those variable have stayed pretty constant for the entire existence of Homo sapiens. That is until the last ~100 years when atmospheric CO2 levels have gone from <300 to 417 ppm. In Earth’s timeframe this is a blink of an eye and basically represents a step change in CO2 and is the only explanation for the current sudden increase in GMST.

Are you aware of the fact that there was a pre-Cambrian global glaciation event 850-630 mya when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 6000 ppm? As well as other previous and subsequent global glacial events in the presence of 4-digit CO2? This statement "That is until the last ~100 years when atmospheric CO2 levels have gone from <300 to 417 ppm. In Earth’s timeframe this is a blink of an eye and basically represents a step (sic?) change in CO2 and is the only explanation for the current sudden increase in GMST." is both silly and indicative of nothing other than a lack of geological perspective. Global Mean Surface Temperature is not related to atmospheric CO2 levels, because CO2 is not a strong greenhouse gas.

A reminder:

Really, think about this: A 4.6 billion-year-old planet with an 8000-mile diameter, with a molten core (heat, etc.), with an atmosphere that is only 50 miles/240,000ft thick (being rather generous), that orbits a star only 93 million miles away with 330,000 times the earth's mass and that emits enough radiation to burn your naked ass in 30 minutes, is having its weather unalterably changed over the course of the next 5/10/15 years (whatever it is now) by the presence of a weak greenhouse gas, CO2, that happens to now be at its lowest level in damn near the entire history of the planet -- a history punctuated by global glaciations while that weak greenhouse gas was far higher than it is now -- and that also happens to be the basis of plant life (and therefore atmospheric oxygen), a gas whose greenhouse effect is dwarfed by that of water vapor (on a planet with a surface area that consists of 70% water), and that geologically is currently in an interglacial period. The models that generated this political bullshit have predicted nothing correctly -- not sea level change, polar ice cover, or weather.

And everybody believes it anyway, to the extent that they are handing the management of the world's economy to elderly megalomaniacs with an agenda based on their own personal power. You're not even allowed to question it -- otherwise sensible people have agreed with the ridiculous premise that CO2 is a deadly poison that must be eliminated from the surface of the earth. Every August, everybody runs around like it's not supposed to be hot. Every time there's a drought, everybody acts like it's the very first time it's been dry too long. "Hurricane season" started in June, and how many hurricanes have devastated the coastlines already inundated by the molten ice caps? How many times over the past 20 years of this shit have the hurricane predictions been correct? This is a classic example of a pseudoscience, exactly like astrology. It's not falsifiable, and it has predicted nothing correctly. And in classic leftist fashion, anyone who disagrees is guilty of "The Pseudoscience of Climate Denialism."

Really, the children are in charge now, seeking validation for "caring about the planet," running around yelling about "carbon" -- the 4th most abundant element in the physical universe --being a deadly poison. Their managers are common criminals whose entire agenda is money and control, and we are letting it happen. It is the result of the shitty science education we received in the government schools, and it probably cannot be stopped.

And in addition, the Government that brought you the flu from China, lockdowns, and vaccines that killed far more people than the flu, the Government in charge of "public education", the war(s) in Asia, the economy, and pronouns wants to also be in charge of the weather. This should give you pause.

[Satch12879]

Stumbled back into this thread and saw a wee "P" deployed. Call Briggs.

[Marc Brainich]

When you’re on the phone with Briggs, ask him about “peer-reviewed.”