quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The best reason not to stop engaging at all is that if you do so, the opponents and more meaningfully, the disinterested, feel you have agreed with the opposition and have lost the debate.

.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

Im actually not surprised at your defensiveness.

Ill write it simply for you.

All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO2] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years).
Seasonality, as reflected in different phases of [CO2] time series at different latitudes, does not play any role in potential causality, as confirmed by replacing the Mauna Loa [CO2] time series with that in South Pole.
The unidirectional

All evidence from the analysis of the longest running set of modern data at one site. As well as the globally averaged temperature, suggests a one directional link with temperature as the cause and carbon dioxide levels as the effect.
This cause and effect direction holds correct over the entire time period and holds correct both close too the equator and near the south pole, meaning its not a seasonal effect.

=================================================

BTW, I did not see where the linked article submission came from the Imperial collage of London. It seems very thorough, Also I did not see where it is peer reviewed.

From the article linked: https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155...sHmgGW1yNbF_WNuKXgas

Clearly, the results […] suggest a (mono-directional) potentially causal system with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. Hence the common perception that increasing [CO2] causes increased T can be excluded as it violates the necessary condition for this causality direction.

[…] in other words, it is the increase of temperature that caused increased CO2 concentration. Though this conclusion may sound counterintuitive at first glance, because it contradicts common perception […], in fact it is reasonable. The temperature increase began at the end of the Little Ice Period, in the early nineteenth century, when human CO2 emissions were negligible […].

=================================================

As I understand it, CO2 is BOTH cause and effect, something that's accepted as fact. IOW, it's not unidirectional. Methane is another example.

https://www.newswise.com/factc...2%20being%20released.

10-Jun-2022 2:30 PM EDT, by Newswise

Fact Check By: Craig Jones, Newswise

Truthfulness: Mostly False

Claim:
Dramatic new findings from two climate science professors suggest that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows a rise in temperature rather than coming before it and causing it, throwing into doubt the whole of the current theory of human-driven global warming.
Claim Publisher and Date: The Daily Sceptic on 2022-06-10

=================================================================

So, basically I called your initial post BS based mostly on intuition, and what little I knew, remembered, from previous reading.

Then I was forced to affirm my view due to your criticism.

There are illnumerable BS pseudo-science and drastic amounts of dis/misinformation out there. And lies. Deniers latch onto them all,

There are a few sources which are reliable. Here's a sample:

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1

Two sources in particular:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital...20than%20200%20years.

https://www.un.org/en/climatec...hd_sx9xoC7SoQAvD_BwE

===================================================================

"Also, gotta love this quote from Deltoid in answer to the CO2 lag argument": 'See also my forthcoming paper: Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them '.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

https://youtu.be/8nrvrkVBt24?si=iEaQMee5t-5jbTJf

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The best reason not to stop engaging at all is that if you do so, the opponents and more meaningfully, the disinterested, feel you have agreed with the opposition and have lost the debate.

.

Simply yes.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The best reason not to stop engaging at all is that if you do so, the opponents and more meaningfully, the disinterested, feel you have agreed with the opposition and have lost the debate.

.

Simply yes.

The best reason to stop arguing with someone herein, like TB40 for example is when whatever debate there was ends, and the BS and making it personal and lying begins. That's not debating.

For those who are so dense or stupid to not recognize what he's doing and think he has won a debate or intimidated me or that he's correct, I can't help that. They will reach such opinion anyway, and I don't want to engage with them either.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
It’s been my experience that if you stop because of personal attacks, then you just encourage more of the same.

As to his commentary, he has a point. You don’t admit you are wrong.

As to personal attacks, I don’t care for them. Calling someone a liar is a personal attack. Saying they made an error in an instance is not.

=================================================

You don’t get that the underlying point of the article that shanks posted fundamentally calls into question the various assumptions about CO2 and its relationship to temperature. I am not going to claim it proves anything, but it does show that our understanding of what drives climate and weather is very limited and incomplete.

Your science cite is an example. It makes a claim while pointing out they don’t know and it isn’t causal because they have evidence where it is wasn’t.

quote:

During the past 170 years, temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased. Published data on global temperature, CO2 data, and data on sea ice in the Arctic have been investigated. It is seen that support for human activities causing the observed increases is weak. It is found that the rate of change in CO2 concentration is controlled by global temperature rather than vice versa. To stop the growing concentration, the temperature has first to be decreased by about 1.4 K. This makes it questionable if attempts by humans to modify the global temperature, or the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will give any noticeable result. A correlation is found between seasonal variations in CO2 concentrations and Arctic sea ice quantities. The present increase in CO2 concentration and temperature is similar to one 55 million years ago, indicating that the Earth passed a 'tipping point' around 1750.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

The idea is gaining some traction though as more research is being done.

this from June 2023

quote:

It is seen that support for human activities causing the observed increases is weak. It is found that the rate of change in CO2 concentration is controlled by global temperature rather than vice versa.

https://www.inderscienceonline...504/IJGW.2023.132276

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Ahh yes Kabob, respect?
Like you calling me a liar .

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

The idea is gaining some traction though as more research is being done.

this from June 2023

quote:

It is seen that support for human activities causing the observed increases is weak. It is found that the rate of change in CO2 concentration is controlled by global temperature rather than vice versa.

https://www.inderscienceonline...504/IJGW.2023.132276

International Journal of Global Warming

I tried to fact check and tried to find anything on the credibility of your source.

I found nothing.

So, the conclusions are the same as your first link.

I'm very skeptical, given that the conclusions are so flip side of prior science.

We shall see if and when there are further developments.

It will become interesting when NASA, and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United Nations Climate Action, National Center for Atmospheric Research (National Science Foundation), National Centers for Environmental Information (NOAA), Skeptical Science,
Center for Climate & Energy Solutions (C2ES) and other reliable sources catch up.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

Umm, ME, They are. Its been known for a long time. Its just the new info is stating the trend is more significant.

https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov...les/carbon-conundrum

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Right, So now we are talking. Rather than jumping too dismissiveness.

1. Have a very careful read of the Nasa article. It clearly says that temp is the main driver but what they dont know is if the natural cycle can fully counter that.


2. Then go back too the last abstract I posted Which basically says that it cant unless we find a way to decrease global temps by {if I have the conversion right.} .025 degree C.


3. Too another aspect now and the nasa hope is that vegetation can absorb the extra natural C being released. It has in the past. However humans now control the vegetation cycle over vast areas. We really need to let that cycle go ballistic and not try to clear forest or stop regeneration.


4. If you put aside the politics, and just concentrate on whats being really said. then we have a potentially bigger problem, of which the anthropogenic C is possibly a small, unhelpful yes, but small player in the big issue.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
ME,

I think the biggest confusion between us is what we each understand science to be and how we deal with it.
I might confuse you with this, but I dont agree with any of what I posted. or see it as an absolute. But also i dont disagree with it. Have a closer look at the language I use. Because I have been very careful in that. You just dont seem to be picking up on that.

Yes I did read your article from sceptical science. I didnt reply too it, because you miss the point. And the article was written pre the publishing of the papers I linked too which actually took some of those criticism and included them in thier work.

quote:

Finally, go too the history page of the royal society, and ask yourself if they would bother publishing something of no merit.

quote:

For instance, you were as you said, trying to change my mind. I never gave you my opinion on climate change.

quote:

if we are having trouble fighting climate change on an anthropogenic stage

quote:

ME, MY subsequent posts have not been about climate change.

quote:

But the sad thing is from other past threads, I know I also agree with ME on some aspects.

quote:

Yeah I think the point that gets me, is I have never denied climate change. I have got into some pretty serious arguments on here supporting it.

quote:

To be fair though I did not post that initial paper to get into a discussion on climate change.

quote:

I dont agree with any of what I posted. or see it as an absolute.

quote:

ME, MY subsequent posts have not been about climate change. They are about your attitude and the disdain you apply to any hint of disagreement.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I wonder if his timing is anything to do with this report recently released?

https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155...sHmgGW1yNbF_WNuKXgas

All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO2] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years).
Seasonality, as reflected in different phases of [CO2] time series at different latitudes, does not play any role in potential causality, as confirmed by replacing the Mauna Loa [CO2] time series with that in South Pole.
The unidirectional

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

unidirectional

1
: involving, functioning, moving, or responsive in a single direction
a unidirectional microphone
2
: not subject to change or reversal of direction

Hummm

Denial is unidirectional.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I'm not buying the premise of your article, shanks.

It's been supposedly well established the CO2 has a direct impact on climate change.

Claims and disinformation are rampant, for purpose.

It's gonna take general consensus of climate scientist to convince me of any merit in your linked article.

The wording alone in your abstract is enough to cross eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
ME, thats an abstract from a submission from the Imperial collage of london. Leading advisors on climate change.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Yep thats understandable. Im cautious too.

What I find interesting about the submission I linked too, is the idea that the warming is the cause of the carbon, not the other way around. It doesn't mean we are not suffering climate change but it potentially means it is part of a natural event.

That ME reacted how he did gives a view of those who promote the science when it suits them. And provides some insight into what we can expect should this paper go further.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
ME, thats an abstract from a submission from the Imperial collage of london. Leading advisors on climate change.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
That ME reacted how he did gives a view of those who promote the science when it suits them. And provides some insight into what we can expect should this paper go further.

I seldom read scientific abstracts. I figure they don't call them abstract for nothing.

I read the one you quoted three times and still didn't understand it.

That's my problem, of course, but they could have said it plainly.

I'm not faulting their findings, whatever they are, because I don't know what they are.

They should get Attenborough to decipher for them.

I think they are saying that CO2 is both cause and effect. Methane is too. Warming releases stored methane especially in the arctic.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

Im actually not surprised at your defensiveness.

Ill write it simply for you.

All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO2] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years).
Seasonality, as reflected in different phases of [CO2] time series at different latitudes, does not play any role in potential causality, as confirmed by replacing the Mauna Loa [CO2] time series with that in South Pole.
The unidirectional

All evidence from the analysis of the longest running set of modern data at one site. As well as the globally averaged temperature, suggests a one directional link with temperature as the cause and carbon dioxide levels as the effect.
This cause and effect direction holds correct over the entire time period and holds correct both close too the equator and near the south pole, meaning its not a seasonal effect.

=================================================

BTW, I did not see where the linked article submission came from the Imperial collage of London. It seems very thorough, Also I did not see where it is peer reviewed.

From the article linked: https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155...sHmgGW1yNbF_WNuKXgas

Clearly, the results […] suggest a (mono-directional) potentially causal system with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. Hence the common perception that increasing [CO2] causes increased T can be excluded as it violates the necessary condition for this causality direction.

[…] in other words, it is the increase of temperature that caused increased CO2 concentration. Though this conclusion may sound counterintuitive at first glance, because it contradicts common perception […], in fact it is reasonable. The temperature increase began at the end of the Little Ice Period, in the early nineteenth century, when human CO2 emissions were negligible […].

=================================================

As I understand it, CO2 is BOTH cause and effect, something that's accepted as fact. IOW, it's not unidirectional. Methane is another example.

https://www.newswise.com/factc...2%20being%20released.

10-Jun-2022 2:30 PM EDT, by Newswise

Fact Check By: Craig Jones, Newswise

Truthfulness: Mostly False

Claim:
Dramatic new findings from two climate science professors suggest that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows a rise in temperature rather than coming before it and causing it, throwing into doubt the whole of the current theory of human-driven global warming.
Claim Publisher and Date: The Daily Sceptic on 2022-06-10

=================================================================

So, basically I called out your initial post based mostly on intuition, and what little I knew, remembered, from previous reading.

Then I was forced to affirm my view due to your criticism.

There are illnumerable pseudo-science and drastic amounts of dis/misinformation out there. And lies. Deniers latch onto them all,

There are a few sources which are reliable. Here's a sample:

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1

Two sources in particular:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital...20than%20200%20years.

https://www.un.org/en/climatec...hd_sx9xoC7SoQAvD_BwE

===================================================================

"Also, gotta love this quote from Deltoid in answer to the CO2 lag argument": 'See also my forthcoming paper: Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them '.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

https://youtu.be/8nrvrkVBt24?si=iEaQMee5t-5jbTJf

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
ME, MY subsequent posts have not been about climate change. They are about your attitude and the disdain you apply to any hint of disagreement.

Go back and find one sentence from me that makes a claim against any level of anthropomorphic Climate change. Or a claim that the overall situation might not be more complex.

All I posted was a reason why Sir David might be choosing that moment to double down. And also you jumped straight too the BS mode before stopping to realise that every bit of science information, whether it suits your viewpoint or not, is actually building a better understanding of the overall picture.

Your responses are more an indicator of your character and disdain for others than anything else. I mean for fucks sake, choosing to blame the entire situation on christianity is a problem in itself.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I didn't blame Christianity for the entire situation. But, IMO, Christianity is to blame for at least half the denial of climate science. That's nothing new. They have always conflicted in several ways with science. They even tried to rationalize/reconcile it a few times, such as Christian Science.

Sir David is not likely to be choosing a pseudo-science study and report as a "moment" to double-down. After all, your link seems to not be the only one of such contrary "science" going back a while, causing the need from real scientist to debunk it, again then again.

Maybe you didn't directly claim but by posting such article as though legit, you indirectly claimed.

It was determined long before the so-called "studies" you posted that a warming climate releases stored CO2, methane, etc., from sea and land.

If such articles/studies actually contributed to a better overall picture, then I would not be criticizing them.

They don't re-invent the wheel. They twist them.

As best I can determine, the article is one of several, over several years, which is part of the denier narratives. At least if not intended that way, the deniers latch onto the notion specifically to cause doubt or affirmation to say that anthropomorphic Climate change science is wrong. That's not adding to the body of science knowledge. It's in direct conflict with it - AND one may presume it's with intent.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Now you are just being obtuse and stupid. I go back too my original claim re your defensiveness.
Id suggest you jumped into a position and cant bring yourself to back down.

quote:

Very regularly through this thread i have told you im not talking about climate change, yet thats where you have tried to keep forcing me to go.