Correlation between temperature and CO2

[IanC]

I quite like this graph. It is much better than simply overlaying two graphs versus time for the variables of temperature and CO2. eg-

The second graph is an example of how any two increasing variables can be made to look related by creative use of the two y axis scales.

The first graph is the actual correlation between the two variables. Because the correlation fluxuates between positive and negative values we know it is not the prime driver of warming. Because the correlation spends more time in the positive phase we can assume that CO2 does cause some warming.

Sounds about right to me.

 

[Old Rocks]

Somehow, I think I will go with atmospheric physicists like Jim Hansen, rather than a anonymous poster on a internet board. Virtually all the atmospheric physicists state that the GHGs are the primary cause of the rapid warming that we are seeing.

 

[IanC]

Somehow, I think I will go with atmospheric physicists like Jim Hansen, rather than a anonymous poster on a internet board. Virtually all the atmospheric physicists state that the GHGs are the primary cause of the rapid warming that we are seeing.

The correlation is what it is. The data is what it is.

Are you arguing that the data is wrong? That the correlation is wrong?

Isn't it true that something like a fifth of all anthropogenic CO2 has been released since the millennium? With very little warming even with all the adjustments?

CO2 warming is exaggerated not non-existent.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Somehow, I think I will go with atmospheric physicists like Jim Hansen, rather than a anonymous poster on a internet board. Virtually all the atmospheric physicists state that the GHGs are the primary cause of the rapid warming that we are seeing.

The correlation is what it is. The data is what it is.

Are you arguing that the data is wrong? That the correlation is wrong?

Isn't it true that something like a fifth of all anthropogenic CO2 has been released since the millennium? With very little warming even with all the adjustments?

CO2 warming is exaggerated not non-existent.

CO2's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system.. When you assess all natural causes, the amount that is man caused is so minuet that it is meaningless.. The water cycle simply lays it waste.

 

[SSDD]

Somehow, I think I will go with atmospheric physicists like Jim Hansen, rather than a anonymous poster on a internet board. Virtually all the atmospheric physicists state that the GHGs are the primary cause of the rapid warming that we are seeing.

indicating that your political beliefs are so strong that they render you unable to spot dishonest and fraud. unfortunate, but alas you appear to be one of those "born every second".

 

[SSDD]

CO2 warming is exaggerated not non-existent.

Does this mean that you are finally gibing up the magic and are coming around to the fact that the sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less?

 

[Crick]

Same Shit,

can you not read?

 

[SSDD]

Same Shit,

can you not read?

Sure...can 't you? He said ..... "CO2 warming is exaggerated not non-existent."

 

[IanC]

Somehow, I think I will go with atmospheric physicists like Jim Hansen, rather than a anonymous poster on a internet board. Virtually all the atmospheric physicists state that the GHGs are the primary cause of the rapid warming that we are seeing.

The correlation is what it is. The data is what it is.

Are you arguing that the data is wrong? That the correlation is wrong?

Isn't it true that something like a fifth of all anthropogenic CO2 has been released since the millennium? With very little warming even with all the adjustments?

CO2 warming is exaggerated not non-existent.

CO2's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system.. When you assess all natural causes, the amount that is man caused is so minuet that it is meaningless.. The water cycle simply lays it waste.

I agree that it is difficult to discern the CO2 signal from the noise.

What the actual size of CO2's warming influence is is up for debate. Just because it is lost in the noise, that does not mean it is tiny, just inseparable. I think the 1C/2xCO2 is probably pretty close. Of course we don't know how much it took for the first degree of warming. Are we in the fifth doubling or the tenth?

Where do the feedbacks occur? Some are close to the surface but others could be further up and even less understood. And let's not forget that the quality of the energy trapped and recycled by CO2 is poor. The potential for doing work and powering changes is low to non-existent. The climate models are wrong in equating it as equal to solar input.

The climate sensitivity estimates for doubling CO2 have dropped a lot over the last twenty years. From well over 3C to less than 2C, even though model predictions for a hundred years out remain the same (?!?!?).

 

[IanC]

CO2 warming is exaggerated not non-existent.

Does this mean that you are finally gibing up the magic and are coming around to the fact that the sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less?

CO2 is a warming influence. I can see how it can be attenuated by negative feedback to less than the calculated 1C/doubling but I fail to see how the sign can be flipped and CO2 turned into a cooling influence.

Do you have some sort of evidence or explanation for your statement?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Somehow, I think I will go with atmospheric physicists like Jim Hansen, rather than a anonymous poster on a internet board. Virtually all the atmospheric physicists state that the GHGs are the primary cause of the rapid warming that we are seeing.

The correlation is what it is. The data is what it is.

Are you arguing that the data is wrong? That the correlation is wrong?

Isn't it true that something like a fifth of all anthropogenic CO2 has been released since the millennium? With very little warming even with all the adjustments?

CO2 warming is exaggerated not non-existent.

CO2's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system.. When you assess all natural causes, the amount that is man caused is so minuet that it is meaningless.. The water cycle simply lays it waste.

I agree that it is difficult to discern the CO2 signal from the noise.

What the actual size of CO2's warming influence is is up for debate. Just because it is lost in the noise, that does not mean it is tiny, just inseparable. I think the 1C/2xCO2 is probably pretty close. Of course we don't know how much it took for the first degree of warming. Are we in the fifth doubling or the tenth?

Where do the feedbacks occur? Some are close to the surface but others could be further up and even less understood. And let's not forget that the quality of the energy trapped and recycled by CO2 is poor. The potential for doing work and powering changes is low to non-existent. The climate models are wrong in equating it as equal to solar input.

The climate sensitivity estimates for doubling CO2 have dropped a lot over the last twenty years. From well over 3C to less than 2C, even though model predictions for a hundred years out remain the same (?!?!?).

When you consider that the current warming trend is not unusual or faster than previous trends and that CO2 rise is offset from warming by as little as 20 years but always lags warming,it is a trailing indicator and not a cause.

Even in your OP you can see the crossover from warming to cooling as the paths cross and temp falls while CO2 continues to climb.. CO2 will soon follow.

Now all you need is proof that CO2 is causing warming as your graphing shows quite clearly that it is not a cause.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Somehow, I think I will go with atmospheric physicists like Jim Hansen, rather than a anonymous poster on a internet board. Virtually all the atmospheric physicists state that the GHGs are the primary cause of the rapid warming that we are seeing.

The correlation is what it is. The data is what it is.

Are you arguing that the data is wrong? That the correlation is wrong?

Isn't it true that something like a fifth of all anthropogenic CO2 has been released since the millennium? With very little warming even with all the adjustments?

CO2 warming is exaggerated not non-existent.

CO2's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system.. When you assess all natural causes, the amount that is man caused is so minuet that it is meaningless.. The water cycle simply lays it waste.

I agree that it is difficult to discern the CO2 signal from the noise.

What the actual size of CO2's warming influence is is up for debate. Just because it is lost in the noise, that does not mean it is tiny, just inseparable. I think the 1C/2xCO2 is probably pretty close. Of course we don't know how much it took for the first degree of warming. Are we in the fifth doubling or the tenth?

Where do the feedbacks occur? Some are close to the surface but others could be further up and even less understood. And let's not forget that the quality of the energy trapped and recycled by CO2 is poor. The potential for doing work and powering changes is low to non-existent. The climate models are wrong in equating it as equal to solar input.

The climate sensitivity estimates for doubling CO2 have dropped a lot over the last twenty years. From well over 3C to less than 2C, even though model predictions for a hundred years out remain the same (?!?!?).

The original IPCC claims was that of 6 deg C warming for each doubling. However, today we see just 0.6 deg C of warming even thought we should have seen 1.6 deg C according to IPCC estimates and forcing models. they failed miserably as we can attribute most of the 0.6 deg C warming to cloud cover changes. Barely 0.1 deg C can be attributed to CO2 but we have not ruled out other sources or causes yet.. now what is CO2 supposed to have done?

 

[Muhammed]

Somehow, I think I will go with atmospheric physicists like Jim Hansen, rather than a anonymous poster on a internet board. Virtually all the atmospheric physicists state that the GHGs are the primary cause of the rapid warming that we are seeing.

Hansen got caught giving false 1998 temperature estimates. Later he got busted in the climategate emails. He knew that his paper regarding the urban heat island effect was bogus, but never retracted the paper. That is very unethical.

And we know his motivation. His motivation is wealth redistribution from rich to poor. We know that because he has indicated that publically. His egalitarian goal may be a worthwhile goal depending on your political point of view, however he has corrupted science in his effort to forward that goal. That is criminal and unforgivable. Now he wallows in the science hall of shame with the piltdown man fraudsters.

He obviously believes that the ends justifies the means. The problem with that philosophy is that you can never know what ends your means will produce, especially when you base it on lies.

 

[IanC]

Somehow, I think I will go with atmospheric physicists like Jim Hansen, rather than a anonymous poster on a internet board. Virtually all the atmospheric physicists state that the GHGs are the primary cause of the rapid warming that we are seeing.

The correlation is what it is. The data is what it is.

Are you arguing that the data is wrong? That the correlation is wrong?

Isn't it true that something like a fifth of all anthropogenic CO2 has been released since the millennium? With very little warming even with all the adjustments?

CO2 warming is exaggerated not non-existent.

CO2's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system.. When you assess all natural causes, the amount that is man caused is so minuet that it is meaningless.. The water cycle simply lays it waste.

I agree that it is difficult to discern the CO2 signal from the noise.

What the actual size of CO2's warming influence is is up for debate. Just because it is lost in the noise, that does not mean it is tiny, just inseparable. I think the 1C/2xCO2 is probably pretty close. Of course we don't know how much it took for the first degree of warming. Are we in the fifth doubling or the tenth?

Where do the feedbacks occur? Some are close to the surface but others could be further up and even less understood. And let's not forget that the quality of the energy trapped and recycled by CO2 is poor. The potential for doing work and powering changes is low to non-existent. The climate models are wrong in equating it as equal to solar input.

The climate sensitivity estimates for doubling CO2 have dropped a lot over the last twenty years. From well over 3C to less than 2C, even though model predictions for a hundred years out remain the same (?!?!?).

When you consider that the current warming trend is not unusual or faster than previous trends and that CO2 rise is offset from warming by as little as 20 years but always lags warming,it is a trailing indicator and not a cause.

Even in your OP you can see the crossover from warming to cooling as the paths cross and temp falls while CO2 continues to climb.. CO2 will soon follow.

Now all you need is proof that CO2 is causing warming as your graphing shows quite clearly that it is not a cause.

You could certainly add lags into the correlation calculations to see if it improved the correlation. It would be interesting to see how long the best lag is for correlation.

Are you up for it?

 

[mamooth]

I quite like this graph. It is much better than simply overlaying two graphs versus time for the variables of temperature and CO2. eg-

It's a misleading graph, in that it focuses on the noise instead of the underlying signal.

The second graph is an example of how any two increasing variables can be made to look related by creative use of the two y axis scales.

If both variables are moving the same way, they're correlated. The second graph shows an obvious correlation because there _is_ an obvious correlation. One can argue that correlation isn't causation, but denying the strong correlation is crazy.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 warming is exaggerated not non-existent.

Does this mean that you are finally gibing up the magic and are coming around to the fact that the sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less?

CO2 is a warming influence.

Got any actual evidence to support that claim...anything beyond failing climate models and a hypothesis with decades of failed predictions behind it?

Of course you don't...and why?....because none exists...for all the billions upon billions flushed down the climate change scam toilet..not the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence.

 

[IanC]

CO2 warming is exaggerated not non-existent.

Does this mean that you are finally gibing up the magic and are coming around to the fact that the sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less?

CO2 is a warming influence.

Got any actual evidence to support that claim...anything beyond failing climate models and a hypothesis with decades of failed predictions behind it?

Of course you don't...and why?....because none exists...for all the billions upon billions flushed down the climate change scam toilet..not the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence.

Easy, the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence is that CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR. That single fact is sufficient to prove that CO2 is a warming influence. Quantifying the amount is more difficult to discern but it is certainly enough to prove the direction.

 

[IanC]

So the Irish population is highly correlated to temperature. So what?

A modern style climate scientist would have truncated the graph at 1970 to further enhance the 'correlation'.

 

[SSDD]

Easy, the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence is that CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR. That single fact is sufficient to prove that CO2 is a warming influence. Quantifying the amount is more difficult to discern but it is certainly enough to prove the direction.

And yet more evidence that you are just another dupe...all that is evidence of is that CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR...look at the other side of that CO2 molecule and you will see that if it didn't lose it immediately due to a collision with another molecule, then it emitted it on to cooler pastures. CO2 has no warming influence. Only the most profound sort of idiot would believe that any substance that increases the emissivity of anything would result in warming...get up and go look in the nearest mirror and ask yourself seriously just how stupid you really are.

 

[IanC]

Easy, the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence is that CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR. That single fact is sufficient to prove that CO2 is a warming influence. Quantifying the amount is more difficult to discern but it is certainly enough to prove the direction.

And yet more evidence that you are just another dupe...all that is evidence of is that CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR...look at the other side of that CO2 molecule and you will see that if it didn't lose it immediately due to a collision with another molecule, then it emitted it on to cooler pastures. CO2 has no warming influence. Only the most profound sort of idiot would believe that any substance that increases the emissivity of anything would result in warming...get up and go look in the nearest mirror and ask yourself seriously just how stupid you really are.

It seems to me that you are the one who is profoundly stupid. You don't grasp the implications of what you say.

Without CO2 all the 15 micron IR produced by the surface would fly away to space at the speed of light. You cannot expel energy faster than that.

Instead, all of the 15 micron surface energy is absorbed into the first few metres of the atmosphere.

This energy is then spread around by molecular collisions, transformed into various forms of kinetic and potential energies. The increase of kinetic energy is by definition an increase of temperature.

But this is a two way street. Energy in the atmosphere can also excite the CO2 molecule by collision in the same way as the 15 micron photon. CO2 molecules are constantly being excited by collision or absorption of a photon, constantly de-excited by collision or emission of a photon.

At lower levels this 15 micron energy cannot escape, there is not enough time between collisions, and the few actual emissions of 15 micron photons are reabsorbed.

At higher levels the air is less dense, the time between collisions is longer, the chance of a photon not encountering another CO2 molecule is greater, therefore more and more 15 micron photons start to escape.

If the amount of radiation escaping at the top was equal to the amount entering at the bottom of the atmosphere then there would be some truth to absorption and emission do not equal warming, although not totally. But emission is temperature dependant, unlike absorption. The temperature at the height where 15 micron radiation escapes is much colder than the surface, therefore less radiation is produced.

The difference between input and output powers warming in the atmosphere. Which in turn causes the surface to warm by reducing the temperature differential, which lowers the amount transferred by conduction.

A new equilibrium temperature at the surface is warmer because it has to radiate more in the bands of IR that still escape freely to make up for the 15 micron radiation that is (partially) blocked.