Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?

[Grumblenuts]

He does not get published in major journals. MDPI is not a well-regarded journal and Davis always seems to work alone. He has a few citations and I could find no serious researchers discussing him at all. His is not the only paper to suggest that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature but they are a tiny fraction of the papers finding otherwise and all of them deal with trends hundreds of millions of years in the past. All data 60 million years and newer show robust correlation. I can't help but think that either some unrealized error is being introduced by the age of the proxies, that some other factor in the distant past dominated global temperatures: differences in the composition of the atmosphere, differences in the configuration of the continental masses, massive volcanism, who knows. Two of the papers I linked noted that CO2 correlation weakened at high levels of CO2, which makes sense given the logarithmic relationship of the two parameters. That is, going from, say, 800 ppm to 1,000 ppm would not produce a distinctive temperature increase because the effect of the change is reduced. And CO2 did get very high in the early Phanerozoic. Once you get past about 300 million years, it hits 2,000 ppm and climbs to about 4,500 ppm all the way back.

Upon more rigorous inspection it seems I judged the guy too quickly and harshly. The "drill sites" were for ice coring. There are two W Davises publishing from the same school now, most likely father and son. The elder has been around, sports impressive bona fides, and has published plenty. Even so, here's the full text of the recent paper I mentioned earlier which is authored by both Davises. Just reading the introduction had my eyes rolling and head shaking in no time.

 

[EMH]

In a response to the subject article I offer the following studies all finding a strong correlation between CO2 and global temperature.:

On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature - Scientific Reports

We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total...

www.nature.com

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.16.8370

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

CO2, the greenhouse effect and global warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Callendar to today's Earth System Models

Climate warming during the course of the twenty-first century is projected to be between 1.0 and 3.7°C depending on future greenhouse gas emissions, b…

www.sciencedirect.com

They would not get taxpayer funding if they did not "find strong correlation."

They will fudge and lie and hide the decline to get those $$$$ climate study grants.


Problem is, of course, they studies are fudge and fraud, and your side cannot explain how co2 melted NA while freezing Greenland at the same time, since co2 does NOTHING....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In a response to the subject article I offer the following studies all finding a strong correlation between CO2 and global temperature.:

On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature - Scientific Reports

We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total...

www.nature.com

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.16.8370

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

CO2, the greenhouse effect and global warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Callendar to today's Earth System Models

Climate warming during the course of the twenty-first century is projected to be between 1.0 and 3.7°C depending on future greenhouse gas emissions, b…

www.sciencedirect.com

The correlation is that CO2 LAGS temperatures on both increases and decreases

 

[Crick]

Upon more rigorous inspection it seems I judged the guy too quickly and harshly. The "drill sites" were for ice coring. There are two W Davises publishing from the same school now, most likely father and son. The elder has been around, sports impressive bona fides, and has published plenty. Even so, here's the full text of the recent paper I mentioned earlier which is authored by both Davises. Just reading the introduction had my eyes rolling and head shaking in no time.

Wow... I guess the IPCC can dissolve itself and we can take down all those wind turbines and solar panels.

 

[jc456]

Wow... I guess the IPCC can dissolve itself and we can take down all those wind turbines and solar panels.

I agree

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you think data from 425 million years ago refutes this:
View attachment 712381
and this:
View attachment 712383
and this:
View attachment 712384
and this:
View attachment 712385
and this:
View attachment 712386
and this
View attachment 712395
and this
View attachment 712394
and this:
View attachment 712389
eh? Perhaps you want to suggest that CO2 has changed over time...

^ posts charts showing CO2 lagging temperature for hundreds of thousands of years, then tries to tell us CO2 drives temperature

Hilarious!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wow... I guess the IPCC can dissolve itself and we can take down all those wind turbines and solar panels.

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy... This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore...." Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC

 

[ding]

So you think data from 425 million years ago refutes this:
View attachment 712381
and this:
View attachment 712383
and this:
View attachment 712384
and this:
View attachment 712385
and this:
View attachment 712386
and this
View attachment 712395
and this
View attachment 712394
and this:
View attachment 712389
eh? Perhaps you want to suggest that CO2 has changed over time...

I think it shows that the geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.

 

[Crick]

I think it shows that the geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.

I have never suggested that CO2 is the only factor in global temperature. But the correlation between CO2 and temperature for the last 60 million years is extremely robust. That is simply irrefutable.

 

[jc456]

I have never suggested that CO2 is the only factor in global temperature. But the correlation between CO2 and temperature for the last 60 million years is extremely robust. That is simply irrefutable.

but you have nothing showing CO2 drives temperature. There is that.

 

[Crick]

but you have nothing showing CO2 drives temperature. There is that.

TROLL

 

[Grumblenuts]

That CO2 lags and amplifies temperature was actually predicted in 1990 in a paper The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming by Claude Lorius (co-authored by James Hansen):

"Changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing"

The paper also notes that orbital changes are one initial cause for ice ages. This was published over a decade before ice core records were accurate enough to confirm a CO2 lag

 

[gtopa1]

TROLL

You Climate Reality Deniers are a hoot but why are you money pits??

It rains
It stops raining

End of story.

We have a very wet October here now and frankly if the Gov hadn't believed the Catastrophists who said it wouldn't rain much again due to AGW/ACC then they would have built flood mitigation instead of ignoring it!!! Now? They're running a losing race to repair levee banks and stuff.

Current strategy:

Carpet Cleaning Near me | 0488 851 508 | #1 Cleaners

Carpet Cleaning Near me - We have been leading the carpet cleaning team and provide professional carpet cleaning services across Adelaide.

wedocarpetcleaning.com.au

I don't believe that is what comes up when I type in "Flood mitigation: Brisbane".

Greg

 

[EMH]

I think it shows that the geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.

Correct, the cause is how much ice, and how much ice depends on how much land is in the polar circles, which way it is moving, and how close is it to "flipping" in or out of continent specific ice age.

 

[Crick]

You Climate Reality Deniers are a hoot but why are you money pits??

It rains
It stops raining

End of story.

We have a very wet October here now and frankly if the Gov hadn't believed the Catastrophists who said it wouldn't rain much again due to AGW/ACC then they would have built flood mitigation instead of ignoring it!!! Now? They're running a losing race to repair levee banks and stuff.

Current strategy:

Carpet Cleaning Near me | 0488 851 508 | #1 Cleaners

Carpet Cleaning Near me - We have been leading the carpet cleaning team and provide professional carpet cleaning services across Adelaide.

wedocarpetcleaning.com.au

I don't believe that is what comes up when I type in "Flood mitigation: Brisbane".

Greg

I am not an AGW denier. I fully accept the conclusions of the IPCC. I have no idea what you mean by "why are you money pits?" or the particular relevance of your comments about rain and flood mitigation.

 

[Grumblenuts]

In Australia’s climate wars, delay and deception are the new denial | Ketan Joshi

Now that they can no longer pretend the climate crisis isn’t real, big emitters and their enablers are making all of the right noises – and taking none of the right actions

www.theguardian.com

 

[ReinyDays]

I have never suggested that CO2 is the only factor in global temperature. But the correlation between CO2 and temperature for the last 60 million years is extremely robust. That is simply irrefutable.

Actually ... Davis (2017) refutes the correlation ... the math gives a negative correlation between CO2 and temperature ... please tell us where Davis makes his mistake ...

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... you need to read your links before you post them ...

 

[Crick]

Actually ... Davis (2017) refutes the correlation ... the math gives a negative correlation between CO2 and temperature ... please tell us where Davis makes his mistake ...

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... you need to read your links before you post them ...

I agree that I should have read Davis' study before posting it as it certainly doesn't support my contention but I'm willing to let it stand as a bit of a testament to my open mindedness. ; - ) Neither you nor I are qualified to do a competent evaluation of his work, but as we both know, it stands in clear opposition to a great deal of published work by many authors - people who ARE qualified to evaluate his work. Such as:

http://droyer.wescreates.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

whose abstract states:

The correspondence between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and globally averaged surface temperatures in the recent past suggests​

that this coupling may be of great antiquity. Here, I compare 490 published proxy records of CO2 spanning the Ordovician to Neogene​

with records of global cool events to evaluate the strength of CO2-temperature coupling over the Phanerozoic (last 542 my). For periods​

with sufficient CO2 coverage, all cool events are associated with CO2 levels below 1000 ppm. A CO2 threshold of below 500 ppm is​

suggested for the initiation of widespread, continental glaciations, although this threshold was likely higher during the Paleozoic due​

to a lower solar luminosity at that time. Also, based on data from the Jurassic and Cretaceous, a CO2 threshold of below​

1000 ppm is proposed for the initiation of cool non-glacial conditions. A pervasive, tight correlation between CO2 and temperature​

is found both at coarse (10 my timescales) and fine resolutions up to the temporal limits of the data set (million-year timescales), indicating that CO2, operating in combination with many other factors such as solar luminosity and paleogeography, has imparted strong​

control over global temperatures for much of the Phanerozoic.​

And

http://[URL]https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/14/3/pdf/i1052-5173-14-3-4.pdf

whose abstract states:

Recent studies have purported to show a closer correspondence between reconstructed Phanerozoic records of cosmic ray flux and temperature than between CO2 and temperature. The role of the greenhouse gas CO2 in controlling global temperatures has therefore been questioned. Here we review the geologic records of CO2 and glaciations and find that CO2 was low (<500 ppm) during periods of long-lived and widespread continental glaciations and high (>1000 ppm) during other, warmer periods. The CO2 record is likely robust because independent proxy records are highly correlated with CO2 predictions from geochemical models. The Phanerozoic sea surface temperature record as inferred from shallow marine carbonate δ18O values has been used to quantitatively test the importance of potential climate forcings, but it fails several first-order tests relative to more well-established paleoclimatic indicators: both the early Paleozoic and Mesozoic are calculated to have been too cold for too long. We explore the possible influence of seawater pH on the δ18O record and find that a pH-corrected record matches the glacial record much better. Periodic fluctuations in the cosmic ray flux may be of some climatic significance, but are likely of secondorder importance on a multimillionyear timescale.​

And

http://[URL]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1342937X18302818

whose abstract states:

Over geological timescales, CO2 levels are determined by the operation of the long term carbon cycle, and it is generally thought that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration have controlled variations in Earth's surface temperature over the Phanerozoic Eon. Here we compile independent estimates for global average surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration, and compare these to the predictions of box models of the long term carbon cycle COPSE and GEOCARBSULF.​

​

We find a strong relationship between CO2 forcing and temperature from the proxy data, for times where data is available, and we find that current published models reproduce many aspects of CO2 change, but compare poorly to temperature estimates. Models are then modified in line with recent advances in understanding the tectonic controls on carbon cycle source and sink processes, with these changes constrained by modelling 87Sr/86Sr ratios. We estimate CO2 degassing rates from the lengths of subduction zones and rifts, add differential effects of erosion rates on the weathering of silicates and carbonates, and revise the relationship between global average temperature changes and the temperature change in key weathering zones.​

​

Under these modifications, models produce combined records of CO2 and temperature change that are reasonably in line with geological and geochemical proxies (e.g. central model predictions are within the proxy windows for >~75% of the time covered by data). However, whilst broad long-term changes are reconstructed, the models still do not adequately predict the timing of glacial periods. We show that the 87Sr/86Sr record is largely influenced by the weathering contributions of different lithologies, and is strongly controlled by erosion rates, rather than being a good indicator of overall silicate chemical weathering rates. We also confirm that a combination of increasing erosion rates and decreasing degassing rates over the Neogene can cause the observed cooling and Sr isotope changes without requiring an overall increase in silicate weathering rates.​

​

On the question of a source or sink dominated carbon cycle, we find that neither alone can adequately reconstruct the combination of CO2, temperature and strontium isotope dynamics over Phanerozoic time, necessitating a combination of changes to sources and sinks. Further progress in this field relies on >108 year dynamic spatial reconstructions of ancient tectonics, paleogeography and hydrology. Whilst this is a significant challenge, the latest reconstruction techniques, proxy records and modelling advances make this an achievable target.​

​

The abstract includes this graphic:

So, somebody has made a mistake and given the numbers of scientists that say the two parameters are correlated through the entire Phanerozoic and the undeniable correlation already established for the last 60 million years (and the absolute nutcase "study" that Davis Jr and Sr put out blaming all the Earth's ills and the collapse of civilization on changes in the Arctic winds (see: Antarctic Winds: Pacemaker of Global Warming, Global Cooling, and the Collapse of Civilizations)), the odds point heavily towards Davis as the errant body.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Actually ... Davis (2017) refutes the correlation ... the math gives a negative correlation between CO2 and temperature ... please tell us where Davis makes his mistake ...

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... you need to read your links before you post them ...

The abstract concludes with:

This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.

Notice how even he has nothing to say regarding today's climate. Also how he doesn't say changes in oceanic CO2 concentrations did not cause temperature changes. He doesn't say much and much of what he does say is clearly BS.

Of 68 correlation coefficients (half non-parametric) between CO2 and T proxies encompassing all known major Phanerozoic climate transitions, 77.9% are non-discernible (p > 0.05) and 60.0% of discernible correlations are negative.

Translation: We looked at all this data and couldn't make hide nor tail out of more than three quarters of it. Two fifths of the remaining quarter indicated positive atmospheric CO2 forcing of temperature while three fifths did not. So we're hanging our hats on that one fifth of one quarter difference, ignoring that two fifths of one quarter we don't like, and going all in on Exxon-Mobil, our favorite hidden sponsor!

 

[ReinyDays]

The abstract concludes with:

Notice how even he has nothing to say regarding today's climate. Also how he doesn't say changes in oceanic CO2 concentrations did not cause temperature changes. He doesn't say much and much of what he does say is clearly BS.

Translation: We looked at all this data and couldn't make hide nor tail out of more than three quarters of it. Two fifths of the remaining quarter indicated positive atmospheric CO2 forcing of temperature while three fifths did not. So we're hanging our hats on that one fifth of one quarter difference, ignoring that two fifths of one quarter we don't like, and going all in on Exxon-Mobil, our favorite hidden sponsor!

I guess you didn't understand the part about the logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature ... also known as quantum saturation ... your translation is hopelessly juvenile ... is this what's "hot" in middle school these days? ...

Physics hasn't changed over the past 500 million years ... there's nothing special about today's climate ... the science is the same ... you should learn about the science yourself, take a class, put all that calculus you learned to work ...

The abstract concludes with

Hey stupid ... the conclusion comes at the end of the paper, not the beginning ... I quoted the first sentence above ... this is what the author means in clear language ... we don't need your translation ... God, that's so pre-teen ...