Here, I'll post Hagas source, along with my response for easy...

Here, I'll post Hagas source, along with my response for easy access.


That was his source - bit hard to read, but I made do.

And here is my response.

Ok, I'm trying to read this from your screen shot, because the paper doesn't appear to be available on open access.

It's a pretty hard read, and I cant tell if the paper is just poorly worded, or if it things have been omitted. If you have a link to a PDF or something that'd be perfect, but I'll try make do.

In the paper he writes "Twelve month mean values from 1981 to 2019 indicate the temperature has increased 0.506K and CO2 concentrations 71.6ppm during 38 years (Figure 1) If the temperature is controlled by the CO2 then 100pm could increase global temperatures by 0.71K".

Now, I cant make it out exactly, but it looks like Figure 1 is temperatures of Moana Loa (Hawaii). But hold on, Moana Loa isn't representative of global temperatures? Why did the author suddenly refer to a 100pm increase in CO2 leading to a global increase in temperatures by 0.71K when he was referring to twelve month mean values of Moana Loa? Moreover, there is no discussion on the local climate of Moana Loa. I had a quick "google" and it seems the tropical region experiences relatively warm temperatures year round with a September average high of 27C and a February high of 24 degrees C. That is not much variation at all. Take for example, Melbourne, which has ranges of 12 degrees C+ between Summers and Winters. Again just a pretty obvious flaw to use this as your base temperature readings. Almost like its been cherry picked.

Further down, again, he writes "As stated above, 100ppm change in CO2 concentration should increase the global temperature by 0.71K" - This is flawed reasoning and surely you must accept this? Global temperatures are not based off one temperature graph and you and I could both find individual locations with temperatures getting much much warmer, or much more colder. Global average temperatures are taken from many (I don't know the exact number, I'm guessing in the thousands) datasets.

With regards to the second part of the paper, again, its quite hard to read, and I need to see the figures a bit more clearer. CO2 concentrations have been in a steady state for over eight hundred thousands years. So I don't know how the Author has reconciled eight hundred thousand years of "constant" (say, 170ppm and 300pm) and then a sudden increase from the industrial revolution to now over 400pm. (Source: Based on figure by Jeremy Shakun,)



So have a read, let me know what you think.