On 12/04/2024 9:42 pm, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:l7r62vFdo59U6@mid.individual.net...
>> On 11/04/2024 9:21 pm, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:l7oimnF1vu3U5@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 11/04/2024 8:26 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> warren wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.
>>>>>>> None of
>>>>>>> it  is factual.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's the thing:
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll see,,,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
>>>>>> mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2 was
>>>>>> an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing, provided
>>>>>> it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier extended his
>>>>>> hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2 would cause the
>>>>>> planet to warm excessively:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
>>>>>
>>>>>> Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had solidified
>>>>>> Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by extensive experimental
>>>>>> data and upwards of 100,000 hand calculations. His theory has never
>>>>>> been successfully challenged. NOT ONCE.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the formula he produced doesnt come even close
>>>>> to covering the tiny increase in world temperatures
>>>>> of 2 degrees C at most over the time when atmospheric
>>>>> CO2 levels have actually doubled.
>>>>
>>>> **Points:
>>>> * CO2 levels have NOT doubled.
>>>> * There will be an inevitable lag with CO2 levels and temperatures.
>>>> * Arrhenius did not have the use of powerful computers for his
>>>> calculations. Given the technology as his disposal, his figures are
>>>> very
>>>> impressive.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
>>>>>
>>>>>> Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit they have
>>>>>
>>>>>> Until  a better theory to explain the present warming trend hasbeen
>>>>>> presented,  then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.
>>>>>
>>>>> But his FORMULA isnt.
>>>>
>>>> **Let's discuss in 100 years. So far, his data points to pretty decent
>>>> accuracy.
>>>
>>> Of course, because if you extend that backwards in time.
>>
>> **I'm suggesting that we look forward in time.
>
> Translation: I don't want to look at data which refutes my claims..

**Not at all. Here's what we see when looking back in time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Global_Temperature_And_Forces_With_Fahrenheit.svg

And further back:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Common_Era_Temperature.svg

And this is deeply concerning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:1955-_Ocean_heat_content_-_NOAA.svg

And here is a graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_800kyr.svg

And here is a graph taking all known influences into account:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:2017_Global_warming_attribution_-_based_on_NCA4_Fig_3.3_-_single-panel_version.svg

And here is the graph that should get you thinking (though I seriously
doubt it):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:%22EDC_TempCO2Dust%22.svg

Note the VERY close correlation between CO2 levels and temperature rise
(and fall).

When CO2 levels rise, so do temperatures. EVERY SINGLE TIME. Here's the
kicker:

Sometimes temperature rise leads and sometimes it lags. Thing is they
are inextricably linked. And that is very important.

Right now, at this time in the history of the planet, we are seeing a
dramatic rise in CO2 levels, followed closely by a consequent rise in
temperatures. As temperatures rise further, we will (are seeing)
outgassing of CO2 from the oceans and the release of massive amounts of
methane (not forgetting that methane is more than TWENTY TIMES more
potent than CO2 as a GHG) from permafrost regions.

https://earth.org/data_visualization/what-is-permafrost/

As a consequence, we can expect a spike in CO2 emissions (methane breaks
down relatively quickly into CO2), followed by another spike in temperature.

The cycle will continue apace.

>
>>
>> . you have a
>>> problem. Because the data points do NOT correlate to global
>>> temperatures.
>>
>> **Sure they do.
>
> No they don't. they  approximate it.

**Near enough.

>
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ousama-Ben-Salha/publication/335336077/figure/fig2/AS:794925952151553@1566536524311/Average-global-temperature-and-atmospheric-CO2-concentration-1880-2014-Source-the.png
>
> You have areas where concentrations are depressed by CO2 is regularly
> increasing. If there were truly correlated then global temperatures should
> have decline during those periods. Then you have other areas where the
> temperatures far exceed what the CO2 would seem to indicate when means you
> have global warming... without cause.

**You are making the faulty assumptions that:

* Climate is not chaotic in nature.
* That a CO2 level rise is followed by an instantaneous temperature rise.

>
> Further lets remind people of this fundamental principle. Correlation =/=
> Causality.

**Let's do just that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:%22EDC_TempCO2Dust%22.svg

>
> Just because you find a correlation does NOT establish it is the cause of
> something.

**Indeed. Which is why Arrhenius proved it more than 120 years ago. If
YOU think Arrhenius got it wrong, then YOU need to present your
alternate hypothesis. Until you do, then Arrhenius' theory stands.

>
> Which of course, if we expand the time scale becomes pretty evident as
> suddenly CO2 and temperatures are not even close.

**Close enough:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:%22EDC_TempCO2Dust%22.svg

>
>
>>  I refer to you to the Early medieval  warming period
>>> followed by the Mini Ace Age of the late medieval. So what caused the
>>> temperature to drop and as it recovers back to what it was.. why is that
>>> a bad thing?
>>
>> **"Bad thing"? It was a thing. Previous cooling and warming periods you
>> mention were likely caused by changes in Solar activity.
>
>
>
> Were likely?

**Yes.

How do you know?

**Me? I don't. I listen to the climatologists. Which is what you should do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

How do you know the current heating isn't
> also cause by changed in solar activity.

**Because Solar activity has been declining over the past couple of
Solar cycles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Solar_Cycle_Prediction.gif

We are presently experiencing a fairly low level of Solar activity.

And that should concern you greatly, as Solar activity is likely to
return to normal sometime in the future. Of course, no one knows when.
It could on the next cycle, or it could be in 1,000 years time. When it
does return to normal activity, then we will see a dramatic increase in
warming.

>
> Clearly we can't simply point at CO2 and say "that's the cause".

**CO2, methane and other GHGs are MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS. Without CO2, this
planet would freeze over. Too much CO2 and it overheats. We know this
from proxy measurements of past epochs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

Look at the temperatures 50 million years ago. That was when CO2 levels
were much higher than they are today. Cause and effect.

>
> Indeed I would like to see you present your proof of this change in
> "solar activity" and how you know they were the cause then.. but aren't
> the cause now?

**_I_ don't know that Solar activity was the cause. CLIMATE SCIENTISTS
are pretty certain that variations in Solar activity was the cause.

>
> Na, what it seems like you're doing is taking the data and making
> guesses about the causes.

**Me? Nope. Like I said: I pay attention to the climate scientists, when
it comes to matters of climate science. The real mystery is why you do not.

>
>
>> We know that the
>> Sun is the major driver of temperatures on this planet.
>
>> However, we also
>> know that CO2 and other GHGs exert a measurable and significant effect.
>
> Which remains to be proven.

**Wrong. It was proven more than 120 years ago. Not once in the
intervening 120-odd years, has Arrhenius been proven wrong. NOT ONCE.

>
> Will simply note that based on long term history.. the Earth is and has
> been in a period of historic global warming... so we can expect to
> experience global warming no matter what we do.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Common_Era_Temperature.svg

Yes, we can expect more warming.

>
> We're not even outside the historic trend lines. NOTHING shows any proof
> that man is the cause of the current global warming, or whether this
> global warming would be occurring anyway. See that's why we call it
> climate.. because it changes. It always has and always well.

**Wrong.

>
> Refer to Medieval Warm Period and the Mini Ice Age.. and now we are
> warming again back to temperatures more like what they were before the
> Mini Ice Age. Which seems like a natural and perfectly reasonable
> process that has nothing do to with us. Otherwise, you're going to have
> to explain how our activities were responsible for both of those events,
>
> Meanwhile Correlation =/= Causality

**Arrhenius proved that more than 120 years ago. Pay attention.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com