climategateFollow

Hey Gbaji welcome to the party. If you bothered to read the posts in threads you'd realize pretty much all the discussion was about correlation between the CO2 and the temperature. And how that indicated a possible correlation, not a direct one. Hence the confusion at your initial posts about the graph. Haha, that's silly, I know you don't actually bother to read these threads, if you did you would have read my last posts where I explained what you were missing.

Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 5:24pm by Xsarus

um, yes it does? I mean, it clearly does. Explicitly so. Here, if you wait a second I'll pull out my magical paint skills.

Guys, here's the problem. Gbaji is saying "That graph only shows a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature, not human activity and global temperature.

Now, there's the factor that humans have drastically changed CO2 levels, which are correlated to changes in global temperature. He cannot seem to wrap his head around that jump. But I think we can all compromise.

Gbaji is right. The graph does not human activity's correlation with global temperatures.

All the rest of the members are right. Humans have changed the CO2 levels of the world, and Ash's graph does show a correlation between CO2 and temperature.

The obvious issue is that Gbaji is purposely setting up a strawman to stop the argument where he wants it before someone comes out and says this obvious fact.

Oops.

Now this doesn't show anything that directly links human activity to temperature, yep. But I've already said that, three times I think. I also explained to you why people initially misunderstood you.


Actually Gbaji explicitly said that it did not several times. He also made the valid point about human activity as well, it was just misunderstood because he decided to ignore the current context of the thread.

Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 5:32pm by Xsarus

reading posts goes directly out of his writing time, don't be silly.

Again, you're arguing what no one else is.

Gbaji: A graph of 400,000 years of change can't accurately show the last 30 years.

Us: CO2 is correlated to global temperature.

Everyone is right. No, on that graph you can't accurately see the last 30 years. But there is a correlation between CO2 and global temperature, and humans have increased CO2 levels globally. Which is what the original premise (show that there's a correlation between human activity and global temperature) was asking. Again, you've purposely misguided the conversation to a strawman in an effort to make it look like we're doing something wrong.

When arguing with Gbaji, the first step is usually to make sure he's still on topic. Usually he's not.

perhaps I should reiterate my response to that very first post where I said not to focus on the last millimeter? Because you probably didn't read it.

Haha, it's funny to see Gbaji complaining about someones post not fitting in with where the thread is at.

Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 5:40pm by Xsarus

OMG You're sooooooooo right! That must be why I commented on unusual temperature activity and took pains to note that I was referencing my chart!



You can stop beckpedaling now. You're already embarassed enough.

You wrote this right? do you stand by it?

a) everyone acknowledged from pretty much the beginning that the graphs didn't show a direct correlation between human activity and temperature. If you're unsure then go back and read my posts at least. I tried to be fairly explicit.

b) the reason the graphs was posted is as follows.

1) CO2 is correlated to temperature. refer to my paint skills if necessary.
2) CO2 is higher now then ever before. - we attribute this to human activity. Feel free to disagree with this, but that was the assumption.
3) as CO2 is getting higher, we can anticipate that there is a chance that temperature might go up as well. Now it might not, but the correlation established indicates that it might.

Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 5:57pm by Xsarus

Again, no that's not what we are saying. The graphs establish a general correlation between CO2 and temperature.

In the graph Ash posted. No.


What is hard for you to understand about that?



Nobody mentioned Ash's graph until I did. And when I pointed out the flaws with the graphs and what he was claiming they showed, I don't recall anyone saying "Why yes. You are correct. That was a poor choice of graph to use...".




I just did. You're only comment was "don't focus on the last millimeter of the graph". But that's the problem, isn't it? It's the last millimeter of the CO2 graph which shows the unusual pattern, right? So a lack of similarly unusual pattern in the temperature graph means that we can't correlate that particular data to the temperature data, can we?


It can (with additional data about human activities) be said to correlate CO2 levels with human behavior. It absolutely cannot correlate those specific "unusual" CO2 levels with temperature though. For the very obvious reason that the graph in question does not allow us to see any such correlation.


Also, and lets be honest here, even better graphs of temperature changes do not show the same degree of correlation in relation to relative CO2 change. A quick glance at the very graphs Ash posted shows this clearly. Temperature appears to be moving up and down in a steady regular pattern. For most of the graph, CO2 levels appear to go up and down in a similar pattern. But then, at the very end, there this very unusual and significant spike in C02. It shows CO2 levels at about double the relative rate (based on the normal range on the graph) than we should expect.

Does the temperature graph show double the temperature (again, within the scaled range shown). If the correlation is to be assumed, we should be seeing temperatures on that graph (or another) about 5-6 degrees C higher than they are.

Clearly, the correlation shown in the graph is *not* reflecting that increased CO2 at the end of the CO2 graph. Thus, we cannot blindly follow that correlation.

Just to be really clear, since I wasn't as specific as I should have been. When I say that the graph does not show a correlation between CO2 and temperature, I'm speaking specifically within the context of the increase CO2 levels during recent decades. Clearly, for most of the time period, there's a correlation shown, but that correlation breaks down when we look at the unusual increase of CO2 in recent times.


It absolutely does not show a correlation between CO2 and temperature which would lead us to assume that human behavior is having an impact on global temperature. We can speculate about the cause of the normal correlation between CO2 and temperature, but it's pretty clear that what is causing the increase in CO2 levels is *not* causing a similar increase in temperature. The temperature increases we've seen are completely in line with "normal" temperature patterns over hundreds of thousands of years. The CO2 increases are not.


Um... And if we assume that it's human activities that is causing the increase in CO2 levels, we can therefore *not* say that there's a correlation between human behavior and temperature. Since that's what Ash was claiming the graph showed, that seemed somewhat relevant...

Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 4:28pm by gbaji

Irrelevant. The question is whether or not that is in turn causing an increase in temperature. The argument being used is that since there has been a correlation between temperature and CO2 levels for the hundreds of thousands of years of ice core data we have, that this correlation must continue when the source of CO2 increase is human rather than "nature".


That is a flawed assumption though and the data does not bear it out. If that same correlation existed, we'd see much much higher temperatures today than we're seeing.

Remember. The entire argument for reducing our industry so as to reduce CO2 output is not about some innate "harm" done by higher CO2 levels, but is predicated on the damage caused by increased temperatures. The entire argument rests on being able to prove that one will cause the other. While correlation is sufficient evidence of this if all other factors remain the same, those factors *aren't* the same, are they?



No. I'm asking for proof that because CO2 levels and temperature levels have been correlative in the past prior to human activity affecting CO2, that they will continue to be so after human activity affects CO2 levels. Let me give you an analogy that may help you understand:

If you were to measure the temperature of a pot of water every day, and also measure the air temperature every day, you would likely find a correlation between them, right? On hotter days, the water will be warmer, and on cooler days, it will be colder. Pretty obvious, right? But if you then placed the pot of water on the burner of your stove, that correlation would cease. Again. Pretty obvious. Some other factor is heating up the water, but not heating up the air to the same degree.


In the past, CO2 levels and temperature both were affected by natural climate forces, just as the water and the air in my example were. Recently, human activity has resulted in increased quantities of CO2 entering the air, while at the same time deforestation has decreased the earths natural ability to convert CO2 back into Oxygen. This effect has certainly resulted in higher CO2 levels. No one's disputing that (although there is some question about the degree of the increase of course).

But just as some other factor entering the equation which only affects the water in the pot would not result in a correlated increase in air temperature, a factor which only increases the CO2 levels can't be said to result in an increase in temperature either. The fact of earlier correlation does not hold because the conditions at play on each of those things has changed.




Not proof of temperature change though. That's the problem. Not only can you not prove that temperature change is caused by CO2 levels, you cannot show a similarly correlated temperature change in relation to CO2 level changes over the time period in question. It's just not there. That's part of why I initially stated that Ash's graph showed the exact opposite of what he was claiming. If the correlation argument was valid, we should see a spike in temperature of similar "size" as the one for CO2. That graph is specifically scaled such that the two measurements are of equivalent size in relation to their own periodical range. Thus, a correlation should look the same.


I'll ask again: Do you see a similar increase in temperature on that graph?

Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 4:48pm by gbaji