Global Warming = Climate Change = Weather Weapons ...

Whilst we, the public are being blamed for using fuels and methods of transportation of harming the environment, no-one is calling on Governments who use Weather Weapons to desist:

https://geopolitics.co/2016/10/15/weath ... late-them/

https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/k ... /past.html

Step 1: Eyeballing (or use ruler) temperature change with respect to CO2 on the left two graphs (upper is CO2, lower is temperature). Total temp change (F) divided by Total CO2 change (ppm) = Rate of change of temp w.r.t. CO2.
Calculate the rate for the two left graphs (before industrialization) and the two right graphs (after industrialization).

Step 2: Compare the rates.
For the left graphs (before industrialization), I got rate of change = (-15 F to 5F) / (175ppm to 300ppm) = 20 F / 125 ppm = 0.16 F/ppm.
For the right graphs (after industrialization), I got rate of change = (-1 F to 1.5F) / (300ppm to 400ppm) = 2.5 F / 100 ppm = 0.025 F/ppm.

The rate of change of temperature w.r.t CO2 before industrialization is 0.16/0.025 = 6.4 times greater than after industrialization.

You just calculated the rate of change as opposed:
from a span of 100,000 years -compared to 110 years. That does not make sense.

Try using this graph, instead (Right click the picture and select View Image to see the Full Graph):



From the link you posted:

Scientists around the world agree that today's global climate change is mainly caused by people's activities.

No offence, but I don't understand the conversation at all, what are we talking about here? I feel like the one who walks into the room, everybody is laughing, and then I ask whats so funny, and things get awkward from there lol.

PS: I love your new avatar Aravisian, very Azenis.

Well...
Swarfendor suggested that nations around the world have the capacity to manipulate the weather.
Carmar suggested that Climate Change is no thang.
I suggested that the current Climate Change trend is Anthropogenic (and severe).
You suggested that we are all nuts.

That catches us up til Right Now. We are in now, now.

Thanks for explaining. My end result thinking on the subject?

We should have taken the blue ****.

Aravisian wrote:You just calculated the rate of change as opposed:
from a span of 100,000 years -compared to 110 years. That does not make sense.

Try using this graph, instead (Right click the picture and select View Image to see the Full Graph):



From the link you posted:

Scientists around the world agree that today's global climate change is mainly caused by people's activities.

The rate of change is only wrt CO2. Correlation is only considered between those two variables. If you choose to include time, then you are actually claiming a dependency on time. That is not the argument. Hence, time is irrelevant here. If time is relevant, then there is no need to consider CO2 as the independent variable, just look at time. Can't have it both ways.

carmar wrote:The rate of change is only wrt CO2. Correlation is only considered between those two variables. If you choose to include time, then you are actually claiming a dependency on time. That is not the argument. Hence, time is irrelevant here. If time is relevant, then there is no need to consider CO2 as the independent variable, just look at time. Can't have it both ways.

Carmar, I think you need to read over what you just said:
" rate of change"
"time is irrelevant here."



Time is always relevant to rate of change, period. There is no possible way of denying that.

The rate of change of CO2 is not an independent variable, in any fashion whatsoever. The exponential rising of CO2 in modern times IS the evidence. It is a mathematical statistic and cannot be distorted by interpretation or spin. At the end of the day, the math remains and it remains the same.

Aravisian wrote:Time is always relevant to rate of change, period. There is no possible way of denying that.

The rate of change of CO2 is not an independent variable, in any fashion whatsoever.

Incorrect.

If CO2 is not the independent variable, then the relationship of CO2 to temp is spurious correlation. Further, if time is always relevant to rate of change, then all relations in this universe are solely governed by time. Humans do not control time, hence humans cannot control CO2, temperature, et al.

One example of where time is not the independent variable:
I drive while texting and drinking my coffee. The total number of texts I make, per trip, governs the number of times I spill coffee. Former is independent, latter is dependent. Time is not the independent variable in this example. The trip could be the exact same duration every time (say, a commute to work), hence no variation in duration, however, there can be variation in the number of spills because the number of texts correlates.

carmar wrote:
Incorrect.

If CO2 is not the independent variable, then the relationship of CO2 to temp is spurious correlation.

This statement makes absolutely no scientific sense, whatsoever.
Whether or not CO2 increase is relevant to time or independent of it has no bearing, at all, as to whether increased CO2 increases the Green House effect.
It is known that increased C)2 increases the greenhouse effect- Heavily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/source ... -emissions
What matters in this topic is whether human actions are responsible for this increase.

carmar wrote:Further, if time is always relevant to rate of change, then all relations in this universe are solely governed by time. Humans do not control time, hence humans cannot control CO2, temperature, et al.

Your argument on this is used to claim that time is not relevant to Climate Change. Again:
It is relevant because it is an examination of the rate of change prior to and after Human Industrialization.
Look at this:


It is very clear.

carmar wrote:One example of where time is not the independent variable:
I drive while texting and drinking my coffee. The total number of texts I make, per trip, governs the number of times I spill coffee. Former is independent, latter is dependent. Time is not the independent variable in this example. The trip could be the exact same duration every time (say, a commute to work), hence no variation in duration, however, there can be variation in the number of spills because the number of texts correlates.

This is not relevant. The topic here is about the INCREASE of CO2 in the atmosphere Over Time and the time periods that show the most increase. You cannot remove Time from this. See the above Graph,

Your example of Coffee and Texts is a slope, but is a Correlation graph, not a rate of change graph. Both a correlation and a rate of change use a slope and both can be graphed in the same manner. However, rate of change is the amount of change over the amount of time. Correlation is on factor compared to the other factor.