The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > CO2 may calm the climate, but it cannot cause wild weird weather > Comments

CO2 may calm the climate, but it cannot cause wild weird weather : Comments

By Viv Forbes, published 6/3/2014

Every day some place in the world has 'wild weather'. And in recent times, human industry gets the blame.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. ...
  14. 16
  15. 17
  16. 18
  17. All
SteeleRedux, Viv Forbes can produce any type of graph he wants, but if he claims for it to show something it doesn’t, it is bogus. This seems to be a common failing in several frequent writers about climate change on OLO. It is impossible for CO2 to have a cooling effect on atmospheric temperature, so a graph that purports to show ‘Global Temperature Impact of CO2 Emissions Declines’ that has negative numbers is clearly bogus. This is something Anthony Cox also falls for.

The graph shows something else, which is a comparison of 30 year temperature changes with cumulative emissions from two undescribed sources. Even this comparison is bogus, because it is cumulative emissions since 1880 for every point, but only 30 year temperature windows.

I don’t know whether this was deliberate on Forbes part. I am more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and just put it down to ignorance. In Cox’s case, I am confident it is plain ignorance.

The graph because it is bogus, makes no point at all. So there is nothing to address from it. Just like that other graphs cohenite links to with the same old cherry picking of starting with 1998
Posted by Agronomist, Sunday, 9 March 2014 3:11:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

Radiative forcing increasing with CO2 mixing ratio is exactly what the graph you posted at
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png
shows. What declines with increasing CO2 ratio is the incremental effect of each additional ppm of CO2.

To put it another way the curve you posted (a logarithmic curve) has a positive first derivative, but a negative second derivative.

The distinction between the first and second derivatives of a curve is basic (senior) secondary school mathematics.

Why doesn't it occur to you, when scientists make a statement which you think is wrong, that you might not have understood it correctly?
Posted by jeremy, Sunday, 9 March 2014 3:51:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ignorance is bliss.

"Even this comparison is bogus, because it is cumulative emissions since 1880 for every point, but only 30 year temperature windows."

So temperature is cumulative too Agro?

I guess in AGW-land anything is possible.

I'm warming to this graph.

The trolls from AGW keep harping about 'da cooling' from 1910 to 1922 as if it meant something other than their tunnel vision. The graph is a plot of a ratio. Specifically:

"Specifically, it plots a ratio of 30-year NOAA temperature changes to the cumulative amount of CO2 tonnes emitted up to that point. For example, the 1941 ratio has a numerator of +0.59°C (30-year annual temperature change) and a denominator of 165 billion CO2 tonnes (the cumulative amount emitted from 1880 through 1941). This ratio calculation is made for each year, starting with 1910 (30 years after 1880)."

Firstly it is entirely fair to match cumulative CO2 to 30 year temperature periods since 30 years is a climatically significant period and the CO2 should have MORE effect as it accumulates.

Secondly, since the period begins from 1880 to 1910, the first 30 year period when temperature was cooling and CO2 rising it is entirely appropriate that the ratio be negative.

Thirdly, the graph also points to the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature.

And still no mention of the point of the graph from Trolls-ville; the log decline.
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 9 March 2014 4:09:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair enough Jeremy; the mixing ratio is the proportion of the GHGs including CO2 with CO2 increasing exponentially over the 20thC so that its relative proportion of the mixing ratio increases.

The IPCC says from the link I keep providing that:

"Note that for CO2, RF increases logarithmically with mixing ratio."

So far, so good. The IPCC understands that more CO2 will have less effect.

Why then does the IPCC predict a greater temperature response, as described by climate sensitivity, for the same increase in CO2 in the future compared with the achieved temperature response to the same post industrial increase amount of CO2?

Let me make that as clear as possible: CO2 increase from 1890 and 290PPM to 2014 and 400PPM; temperature increase of GAT 0.7C. Predicted temperature for next 100 PPM is from 1.5 - 4C.

How is that possible if the IPCC scientists take into account the log effect of more CO2?
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 9 March 2014 4:24:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Agronimist,

I fully accept that Forbe's graph does not endorse his pontifications.

To say that “This graph shows that the apparent effect of man's production of carbon dioxide has declined dramatically since 1941, and it is now insignificant.” is just simplistic and so off the mark that it is laughable. But even given its lightweight nature I'm usually happy to see what nuts and bolts the author threw together to make it.

You claim graph includes “two undescribed sources”. I know it is more than a couple of clicks to find it but here is the spreadsheet provided by Forbes. Something I have yet to find Cox being prepared to do.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/files/download-noaa-co2-emissions-020714.xlsx

I feel if you are hung up about the 'cooling effect' at the start of the graph you are not quite appreciative of his position. Granted the clumsy, unscientific, ill-labeled concoction does him no favours but you must understand the 'zero' is entirely arbitrary.

Once one moves past that it becomes clearer what he is attempting to show.

Dear Cohenite,

I too am having lots of fun with Forbe's graphs but the one you highlighted has me stumped.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a73d5ebffd970d-pi

I have manipulated the data even more than one has any right to do and I still can't reproduce it. Being a master at such artistry I'm wondering if you might put me out of my misery. It isn't the starting and finishing figures that derive his .49C amount. I even went to your favourite site and threw in the data to derive the Trendlines for the periods he describes.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1914/to:1963/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1964/to:2013/trend

But no luck. Given your self proclaimed appreciation of Viv's skills perhaps you could afford us your own deciphering skills and let us know how he derived the temperature figures.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 9 March 2014 4:26:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite, right on cue proves the point.

How simply can I put this? The 30 years is not cumulative, because it is the temperature in that year compared with the temperature 30 years previously. Temperature of +0.59C in 1941 is made up of the anomaly of 1941 (+ 0.16C) and 1911 (-0.44C).

Secondly there is nothing fair about comparing cumulative CO2 with 30 year temperature changes, because the same amount of CO2 does not go on warming the atmosphere by the same amount forever. Once it has warmed it has warmed.

Secondly, I know why the data comes out negative. It is because what has been done with the data is not what is being claimed. What is being claimed is about CO2 warming the atmosphere, as CO2 cannot cool the atmosphere any cooling that results is a clear signal that the graph is bogus.

Thirdly, the graph does not point to any lack of correlation between temperature and CO2, because it is not a correlation between these things. It is a plot of 30 year temperature differences divided by cumulative emissions of CO2.

Because the graph is bogus, it makes no point - other than the author of the graph is innumerate.
Posted by Agronomist, Sunday, 9 March 2014 4:34:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. ...
  14. 16
  15. 17
  16. 18
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy