Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

Geomagntic - Climate, page-84

First 84 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
mjp2

10,634 Posts.

226

02/12/15

14:17

Post #: 16529953
Share

Originally posted by Primate ↑

Mjp2: cum hoc ergo proctor hoc literally means "with this, therefore because of this", which is fallacious, and therefore does not apply. I was agreeing with you that correlation does not imply causation. The IPCC claims to have a very poor understanding of cosmic ray and geomagnetic effects. If you have poor understanding of your inputs, then you cannot have confidence in your model outputs. All the "90%" confidence refers to is the range of output permutations of the models. you can quite happily say that 90% of model runs demonstrate a particular range, but if your inputs are crap, so will your outputs. If you throw 100 darts at the board in the pub and 90 of them hit the barman in the eye, you can be 90% confident in your aim, but that doesn't help you much.

Redux: Jopo linked to the source data, you can easily verify it yourself, as I have done. I obtained my magnetic field data from Geoscience Australia (www.ga.gov.au) going back to 1985.

Pearson correlation co-efficient between Hadcrut4 temperature anomaly and north magnetic polar wander = 0.82 vs 0.86 for CO2 over that period and -0.80 for total field strength.
Spearman correlation = 0.71 for polar wander, -0.77 for field strength and 0.84 for CO2

If we just look at the last 15 years, temperature correlation drops to -0.2 for polar wander, which implies poor correlation, however it also drops to 0.50 for both field strength and CO2, which certainly shouldn't be the case in CO2 is the main causative driver of climate change.

Ferronium: 97% of climatologists DON'T agree that GW is mostly man made, and even if they did, that still wouldn't be a valid evidentiary argument. But if you're referring to the 2013 Cook and Nuccitelli paper that claimed that 97% consensus, are you aware that a follow up peer reviewed published paper demolished that work showing that only 0.3% of the papers reviewed by Cook and Nuccitelli explicitly supported the anthropogenic CO2 cause? 0.3% Many of the authors subsequently interviewed even stated that cook took their work out of context, and Cook's rebuttal was so poor that it wasn't deemed worthy of publishing?

Mjp2? What evidence that CO2 is a primary causal mechanism are you referring to? and what observations over 50 years are you referring to that support it? Back in the Ordovician period when CO2 was 20 times higher than today, we didn't have acidic oceans, At the end of the Ordovician, when we had global glaciation, CO2 was drastically higher than today. At the start of the Holocene period between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago, the world was warmer than now, with much lower CO2, and so idyllic for humanity it prompted the agricultural revolution and the commencement of civilisation. Subsequently we have had periods of global warming and cooling not dissimilar to current trends. In fact through all of history, pre-history and geological record, we have had wide and rapid variations in climatic conditions, for which there is no evidence what-so-ever that CO2 was a causative agent, but we're somehow to believe now that because we humans have added a mere 15 parts per million of additional CO2 to the atmosphere the world is going to end? don't make me laugh.

The fact is, We still don't have any predictive understanding of the natural causes of climate change, which throughout history and pre-history have dwarfed any current changes, and without understanding the natural causes, it is simply incorrect to say that we are confident that this time around it's all our fault.
Yes, CO2 absorbs EM radiation in the 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometer wavelengths, increasing CO2 will therefore increase the opacity of the atmosphere to these wavelengths, the physics is not in dispute, but there is SO much more to our complex and chaotic atmosphere than this. CO2 has never driven climate in the past, and I've not seen ANY evidence to suggest that it does now.

Expand

1)
You have answered your own question regarding the evidence that greenhouse gasses are the primary cause of warming. You stated "Yes, CO2 absorbs EM radiation in the 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometer wavelengths, increasing CO2 will therefore increase the opacity of the atmosphere to these wavelengths, the physics is not in dispute".

While I think you have rather paraphrased the physics in your statement, perhaps not entirely correctly, I agree that the physics for the greenhouse gas mechanism of warming is not in dispute.

2)
You are disputing the evidence that planet temperature has been affected by greenhouse gasses, both in the short term and the long term.
In both cases you are being overly simplistic and ignoring the other variables impacting on climate.

In the short term ENSO variability in particular affects the direct correlation with greenhouse gas levels. After accounting for that, volcanic activity and increased fossil fuel aerosol levels from around 1950-1970, climate science has demonstrated the relationship between greenhouse gasses and warming.

For the paleographic time periods, orbital and solar variables are also involved and were much different to today. Again, allowing for those effects the relationship between greenhouse gasses and temperature is evidenced.

So I would disagree with what you wish to state as "fact". The scientific evidence is that we DO have a reasonable predictive understanding of the current causes of climate change - within the stated uncertainty ranges in the IPCC report, which I would still argue as conservative, as it does not include allowance for the unknown worsening impact of tundra melt and methane release, nor increased CO2 release from increased forest fire activity with warming.

Now, for sure, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are simply incorrect in claiming your opinion, at contradiction with the science, is fact.

I think you need to read a bit more climate science, because based on your comments I think you are not aware of a lot of the scientific evidence and argument.
Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

Week 28 Wrap: ASX hits all time high; CBA shares' two realities; US inflation hits 3% ahead of China plenum

MDI

Nanocap Middle Island Resources kicks off Barkly copper-gold drill run – a potential IOCG-style NT project

Bitcoin investors need to know the risks

I88

Infini soars 50% as company reveals it could’ve just made uranium history – redefining what it means to be “high grade”

NIM

Nimy to raise $1.21M to explore 'newsy' WA targets

There are more pages in this discussion • 23 more messages in this thread...

First 84 Last