Comments on: Antarctic Temperature & Carbon Dioxide http://www.pierrejoris.com/blog/?p=2353 Meanderings & mawqifs of poetry, poetics, translations y mas. Travelogue too. Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:05:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Dubl D http://www.pierrejoris.com/blog/?p=2353#comment-239 Dubl D Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:56:07 +0000 http://pierrejoris.com/blog/?p=2353#comment-239 Brilliant!! From: The analysis of past changes of Antarctic temperature and the concentration of greenhouse gases alone cannot reveal causal relationships in the climate system. To: our results demonstrate clearly that the Antarctic temperature lead over CO2 observed during past glacial cycles does not challenge the major role of greenhouse gases in driving climate change And how?: The ultimate understanding of past climate changes will only be possible when using paleoclimate records in conjunction with comprehensive Earth system models. Hilarious. No single scientific fact has EVER been proven this way. Conversely, without a verified causal mechanism at their foundations, these models don't and won't even APPROXIMATE reality, much less prove it. The entire idea is 180 degrees reversed from reality. This is such a laughable mockery of science and scientific method that I'm sure the people who said it were comedic impersonators, and the real scientists were bound and gagged in a closet. Either that or the apocalypse is already upon us... Brilliant!!

From:
The analysis of past changes of Antarctic temperature and the concentration of greenhouse gases alone cannot reveal causal relationships in the climate system.

To:
our results demonstrate clearly that the Antarctic temperature lead over CO2 observed during past glacial cycles does not challenge the major role of greenhouse gases in driving climate change

And how?:

The ultimate understanding of past climate changes will only be possible when using paleoclimate records in conjunction with comprehensive Earth system models.

Hilarious. No single scientific fact has EVER been proven this way. Conversely, without a verified causal mechanism at their foundations, these models don’t and won’t even APPROXIMATE reality, much less prove it. The entire idea is 180 degrees reversed from reality. This is such a laughable mockery of science and scientific method that I’m sure the people who said it were comedic impersonators, and the real scientists were bound and gagged in a closet.

Either that or the apocalypse is already upon us…

]]> By: Ben http://www.pierrejoris.com/blog/?p=2353#comment-238 Ben Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:49:34 +0000 http://pierrejoris.com/blog/?p=2353#comment-238 Interesting, but completely unenlightened and unsupported in reality. If I had tried to make such an argument in my modeling classes in college, my numerical methods professor would have gotten out his red marker and put an F the size of the paper on my report. While the data shows that temperatures are largely dependent on non-CO2 forces. To prove that CO2 is responsible for warming amplification, you would have to demonstrate a surge in warming after the CO2 began to rise. The data doesn't show such a double-curve rise. Of course, I question whether the data is of a high-enough resolution to be able to show such a thing. On near-aeon scales, data dating to the millenium or century level tends to get rather fuzy. In short, this data shows nothing that would indicate that CO2 is a primary driver of temperature. The creation of a model that fits the hypothesis is irrelevant as you can easily make a mathematical model that shows that Kyle's mom is the cause of global warming (to borrow a phrase from a poorly-drawn television satire). Models are not evidence. The parts concerning various forcings are good, but the conclusions do not follow from the evidence. Interesting, but completely unenlightened and unsupported in reality. If I had tried to make such an argument in my modeling classes in college, my numerical methods professor would have gotten out his red marker and put an F the size of the paper on my report.

While the data shows that temperatures are largely dependent on non-CO2 forces. To prove that CO2 is responsible for warming amplification, you would have to demonstrate a surge in warming after the CO2 began to rise. The data doesn’t show such a double-curve rise. Of course, I question whether the data is of a high-enough resolution to be able to show such a thing. On near-aeon scales, data dating to the millenium or century level tends to get rather fuzy.

In short, this data shows nothing that would indicate that CO2 is a primary driver of temperature. The creation of a model that fits the hypothesis is irrelevant as you can easily make a mathematical model that shows that Kyle’s mom is the cause of global warming (to borrow a phrase from a poorly-drawn television satire). Models are not evidence. The parts concerning various forcings are good, but the conclusions do not follow from the evidence.

]]>