Simple climate change refutation challenge

[Alric]

Ok. For those that like to make graphs and argue that climate change is not real or associated with phenomena other than C02. Can you show data in graph form that is better than this?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarmingUpdate/

Same time scales, proportional units and references must be provided. Your post should not be longer than this one. The simpler and shorter the more convincing it will be. Go.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Ok. For those that like to make graphs and argue that climate change is not real or associated with phenomena other than C02. Can you show data in graph form that is better than this?

I'm sorry but I have to say this: correlation does not in itself prove causation.

 

[Alric]

No. But leads to hypothesis. Specially since a physical property of C02 is that it is a greenhouse gas.

It has been mentioned before that other variables correlate better. I would like to see that.

 

[casebro]

My own take on it all is that our '"unprecedented temperature increase" started at the same time that the thermometer became common. This is the point that our temp data began to come from direct readings. All older history is recorded in 'proxies'- tree rings, sedimentary layers, coral growth. These proxies are all subject to interpretation. I believe that most previous short term temperature spikes, like we are in now, don't show in the proxies. Likewise, there have been some points in those proxies that were warmer than it is now. This all leads to my personal summation that the current hysteria is agenda driven. Either politically by folks who just have the concept that humanity is ruining the Earth, and/or egocentrically, by the scientists with inherent vested interests .

There is concerted CT involved, just another Ponzi Scheme without a particular Ponzi.

Time will tell. Call me back in ten years and give me an update.

 

[Alric]

Ok. Argument from distrust does not count. Next.

 

[Alric]

Since I did a double post I might as well elaborate a little. That the temperature and C02 levels are rising abnormally is the consensus of hundreds of scientists. The purpose of this thread is to refut that interpretation with data other than the graphs presented above. The argument of distrust of the establishment is empty unless followed by facts or work.

 

[alock]

Same time scales, proportional units and references must be provided. Your post should not be longer than this one. The simpler and shorter the more convincing it will be. Go.

Why?

If you believe in AGW and want others of a scientific mind to do so then you need to act like a scientist. You are the one making the claim that there is AGW. 2 numbers increasing together does not do that.

The link your graphs are on has two funny quotes.
From the main text:
"and these gases caused temperatures to rise between 0.6°C and 0.9°C (1.08°F to 1.62°F) over the past century."
From the side text:
"Since 1750, carbon dioxide levels have increased 35 percent, while temperatures have gone up between 0.6°C and 0.9°C. "

So which is it? The stated increase in 100 years or 258 years? I can only conclude this data has not been proof read or even written by someone who is impartial.

Note: I'm not saying AGW exists or not, just that your argument is not productive.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I refer you to the graph on this page.
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

 

[Alric]

From the main text:
"and these gases caused temperatures to rise between 0.6°C and 0.9°C (1.08°F to 1.62°F) over the past century."
From the side text:
"Since 1750, carbon dioxide levels have increased 35 percent, while temperatures have gone up between 0.6°C and 0.9°C. "

Err..those two statements are entirely compatible... Read them again.

 

[Alric]

I refer you to the graph on this page.
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

I am very well aware of the inverse relationship between number of pirates and global temperature. I myself indulge in pirate games every once in a while just in case.

However, pirates are not known to be have the physical property of being a greenhouse gas. Logic without context is not productive. Correlations are very useful to formulate hypotheses and plan a course of action.

Do this experiment. On your car let the air go of a tire and make a graph of air pressure and tire height. They correlate and the hypothesis is that air pressure is related to tire height. In this case the correlation is correct because your senses as well as common sense tells you that.

The hypothesis that C02 drives climate change is driven by their correlation AND the fact that C02 is a greenhouse gas.

 

[Geckko]

I am very well aware of the inverse relationship between number of pirates and global temperature. I myself indulge in pirate games every once in a while just in case.

However, pirates are not known to be have the physical property of being a greenhouse gas. Logic without context is not productive. Correlations are very useful to formulate hypotheses and plan a course of action.

Do this experiment. On your car let the air go of a tire and make a graph of air pressure and tire height. They correlate and the hypothesis is that air pressure is related to tire height. In this case the correlation is correct because your senses as well as common sense tells you that.

The hypothesis that C02 drives climate change is driven by their correlation AND the fact that C02 is a greenhouse gas.

I can't see where you established there is a statistically significant correlation. I think that was the point.

 

[Alric]

I can't see where you established there is a statistically significant correlation. I think that was the point.

With data like that absolutes do just fine. Correlations have been done elsewhere.

 

[Geckko]

With data like that absolutes do just fine. Correlations have been done elsewhere.

Spurious corellations are the easiest thing to find, even when working from well founded hypotheses.

That is why someone proposed the alternative of pirates, but it could have been a less fasetious alternative.

This is an interesting example of one of the potential problems raised by a statistician. One that is obscured by the way your data is presented:

WMBriggs

 

[Alric]

Spurious corellations are the easiest thing to find, even when working from well founded hypotheses.

That is why someone proposed the alternative of pirates, but it could have been a less fasetious alternative.

This is an interesting example of one of the potential problems raised by a statistician. One that is obscured by the way your data is presented:

WMBriggs

The point is to test them! Do not make the assumption that all correlations are false because some are not true. In science most testable hypotheses begin with an observed correlation that is then proven correct or incorrect by experimentation or further observation.

The link you provided discusses how ice core measurements are not exactly comparable to direct measurements. This is not surprising but can be compensated for, something the author doesn't do.

The graphs I linked do not involve ice cores, btw. Most are direct measurements from Mauna Loa.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Spurious corellations are the easiest thing to find, even when working from well founded hypotheses.

That is why someone proposed the alternative of pirates, but it could have been a less fasetious alternative.

This is an interesting example of one of the potential problems raised by a statistician. One that is obscured by the way your data is presented:

WMBriggs

From one of the comments:

Both those that strongly advocate that the current warming trend will be “catasptrophic” and link every little weather calamity or change with AGW and those that try to argue that there is no evidence of any warming or that increasing CO2 levels can’t possibly lead to some amount of warming are equally guilty on this point.

Well put.

Great link. Thanks.

DR

 

[Alric]

Note that this thread is not about the implications if climate change is real. It is directed at those that say nothing is happening or is not CO2.

 

[balrog666]

Note that this thread is not about the implications if climate change is real. It is directed at those that say nothing is happening or is not CO2.

Then who cares?


Just assume it's true just for the argument, what solutions do you propose, what effects will those "solutions" have on the climate and our current civilization, and how do you established any such effects?

And if your proposed solutions cannot be scientifically relied upon to cause the effect you intend and are politically infeasible to enact, then any argument about it is just a waste of time.

 

[Alric]

Just trying to compartmentalize the discussions. Suffice it to say I think the consequences of not reducing the effects of climate change will be more expensive and damaging to the environment than not doing anything.

Reducing C02 output will not only mitigate climate change but is also a business opportunity that will be of great economic benefit. It just happens that it will not benefit oil companies. I'm fine with that. However, this is a problem for certain political groups and is the attitude I would like to change.

 

[Geckko]

Note that this thread is not about the implications if climate change is real. It is directed at those that say nothing is happening or is not CO2.

I thought it was about presentation and interpretation of data.

I just checked back to the OP.

Yes it is about presentation and intepretation of data.

 

[Alric]

Right. The data says there is climate change and is likely C02. The challenge to those that disagree is to show data as powerful as the graphs in the OP.