A detailed analysis of temperature, CO2 and methane variations from the Vostok ice core is presented for the time interval 137,383 to 102,052 years ago. This captures the termination of the glaciat…
euanmearns.com
There are MASSIVE deviations here. One will lead the other by thousands of years. One will go up while the other is going down. One will be steady while the other is all over the place. It's INSANITY.
It's also an extremely robust correlation. Your "except" isn't shite.
Climate Change? Oh sure, but just have a look over here at this selection of weather events one more time!
Hey, what?! Stop that! I'm no troll! I'm not deliberately injecting oranges into a discussion of apples!
No, that's what you always do! You stupid projectionists you! Waah!
Climate Change? Oh sure, but just have a look over here at this selection of weather events one more time!
Hey, what?! Stop that! I'm no troll! I'm not deliberately injecting oranges into a discussion of apples!
No, that's what you always do! You stupid projectionists you! Waah!
The American labor force is whipped by going into debt for junk designed to become obsolete whether it is made in America or China is irrelevant.
Adam Smith wrote about education and said, "read, write and account".
The U.S. could have made accounting/finance mandatory in the schools since Sputnik. They weren't even talking about global warming back then. Ask an economist about demand side depreciation.
I read an interesting point once in an article about vehicle fuel mileage. It's a great deal more beneficial to get an 8 mpg truck to 15 mpg than to get a 40 mpg subcompact to 50 mpg. The point here is that I think it very likely that it would be far more beneficial for YOU to work harder on your GHG emissions than for me to do so since I've been doing so for almost 20 years and you likely haven't ever given it a second thought.
No! The world was so different Milankovitch cycles were irrelevant and human beings could not survive under those conditions anyway. What matters is deviating out of relatively comfortable conditions that we had from the 60s through the 80s.
Ocean and wind currents might have differed, but chemical composition and basic physics still applied. Also, fauna evolution was no where near to producing humans back then.
Point is "Earth didn't have a "fever." "; and CO2 though a larger percentage, still wasn't a driving force to average global climate. If anything, the average global climate helped drive the percentages of CO2.
Side? Those of us still not impressed with your little clique of fossil fuel invested die-hards? We're the norm. You're just weird. Many remain addicted to things like drinking and smoking. That never makes surrendering to bad habits smarter or better. There's no actual "side" favoring remaining stupid in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary. Keep trolling away if you feel so compelled, but get sick and die quickly.
Water evaporates and precipitates and creates clouds that reflect energy. Well, well, it's complicated. But the CO2 remains and builds up and gets pretty evenly distributed from the sources over time. But the sources put up more.
There is a VERY strong correlation between CO2 and global temperature and it works in both directions. Increasing CO2 levels lead to increasing temperatures and increasing temperatures lead to increasing CO2 levels. Both these relationships are directly observed physical phenomena. Your claim that CO2 has no major or direct bearing on global climate is demonstrably incorrect.
That correlation s more an occasional coincidence.
NO one has proven this in laboratory replication conditions.
Unless we engage atomic energy such as fission or fusion, no way can one molecule of CO2 transfer significant heat(any at all really) to 2,499 molecules of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, etc.
Again, you seem deficient in basic math, chemistry and physics.
Climate Change? Oh sure, but just have a look over here at this selection of weather events one more time!
Hey, what?! Stop that! I'm no troll! I'm not deliberately injecting oranges into a discussion of apples!
No, that's what you always do! You stupid projectionists you! Waah!
So, everyone can look at the weather map for the country and see the same climate as has been in my 66 years of life! Cold dipping out of Canada all the way to Florida like most every year. I’m still waiting for where climate change is
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 ...
Previously, we looked at the correlation between CO2 and temperature over the past 40 years. However, as I'm always saying, you need to look at the broader view, not just a single piece of the puzzle. The 40 year period was chosen to demonstrate that even during a period of long term warming...
Global annual average temperature (as measured over both land and oceans) has increased by more than 1.5°F (0.8°C) since 1880 (through 2012). Red bars show temperatures above the long-term average, and blue bars indicate temperatures below the long-term average. The black line shows atmospheric...
This is the closest to the original question. The answer seems to come from climate science rather than statistics. Even though the graph has an R-squared value of 0.752, showing a consistent linear relationship between CO2 and temperature, climate science seems to indicate that increases in CO2 have a logarithmic relation to changes in temperature. The best numbers that I could find are for every doubling of CO2 global temperature increases 3C.
I have had three semesters of college statistics as part of my BSBA degree. From what I recall from regression analysis the graph seems to show a very high coefficient of determination between CO2 ...
stats.stackexchange.com
And if you know some statistics this website provides: The average coefficient of determination (R-squared) turns out to be 0.752 Asynchrony between Antarctic temperature and CO2 associated with obliquity over the past 720,000 years
For the entire record, the 90% confidence ranges of the correlations (R-squared) of CO2 with δD, ΔTsite and ΔTsource are 0.68–0.73, 0.76–0.80 and 0.75–0.79, respectively.
The absorption of IR by CO2 was demonstrated in the lab in 1856. These days, the results of more accurate instrumentation in the lab provide us these data:
Unless we engage atomic energy such as fission or fusion, no way can one molecule of CO2 transfer significant heat(any at all really) to 2,499 molecules of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, etc.
"Engage atomic energy"??? Did you actually think that sounded like you knew what your were talking about?
Those laboratory experiments have shown that for the frequencies that CO2 absorbs, its concentrations in the atmosphere is sufficient to absorb 100% of radiated energy in a column length of less than 10 meters.
Side? Those of us still not impressed with your little clique of fossil fuel invested die-hards? We're the norm. You're just weird. Many remain addicted to things like drinking and smoking. That never makes surrendering to bad habits smarter or better. There's no actual "side" favoring remaining stupid in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary. Keep trolling away if you feel so compelled, but get sick and die quickly.
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 ...
Previously, we looked at the correlation between CO2 and temperature over the past 40 years. However, as I'm always saying, you need to look at the broader view, not just a single piece of the puzzle. The 40 year period was chosen to demonstrate that even during a period of long term warming...
Global annual average temperature (as measured over both land and oceans) has increased by more than 1.5°F (0.8°C) since 1880 (through 2012). Red bars show temperatures above the long-term average, and blue bars indicate temperatures below the long-term average. The black line shows atmospheric...
View attachment 712173
This is the closest to the original question. The answer seems to come from climate science rather than statistics. Even though the graph has an R-squared value of 0.752, showing a consistent linear relationship between CO2 and temperature, climate science seems to indicate that increases in CO2 have a logarithmic relation to changes in temperature. The best numbers that I could find are for every doubling of CO2 global temperature increases 3C.
I have had three semesters of college statistics as part of my BSBA degree. From what I recall from regression analysis the graph seems to show a very high coefficient of determination between CO2 ...
stats.stackexchange.com
And if you know some statistics this website provides: The average coefficient of determination (R-squared) turns out to be 0.752 Asynchrony between Antarctic temperature and CO2 associated with obliquity over the past 720,000 years
For the entire record, the 90% confidence ranges of the correlations (R-squared) of CO2 with δD, ΔTsite and ΔTsource are 0.68–0.73, 0.76–0.80 and 0.75–0.79, respectively.
<p>When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate.</p>
skepticalscience.com
The absorption of IR by CO2 was demonstrated in the lab in 1856. These days, the results of more accurate instrumentation in the lab provide us these data: View attachment 712188
"Engage atomic energy"??? Did you actually think that sounded like you knew what your were talking about?
Those laboratory experiments have shown that for the frequencies that CO2 absorbs, its concentrations in the atmosphere is sufficient to absorb 100% of radiated energy in a column length of less than 10 meters.
