back to article Scientific consensus that 2014 was record hottest year? No

So the results are in. The main US global-temperature scorekeepers - NASA and the NOAA - say that last year was definitely the hottest year on record. But they've been contradicted by a highly authoritative scientific team, one actually set up to try an establish objective facts in this area. On the face of it, there's no …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. codejunky Silver badge

    Well

    You can torture statistics to mean anything. And if you play on peoples fears you can force them into action they wouldnt rationally choose.

    1. Stuart 22

      Cut the sh*t!

      OK Lewis you had your say. I'm a mere statistician specialising in timeseries analysis. I'm not going to argue. I hope to live another 20 years - I hope you do too. So what wager are you going to make that the mean temperature of the next 20 years will not be higher than the last 20 years?

      We can use any reasonable bucket of how that is measured. Over to you.

      1. Gordon 10
        FAIL

        Re: Cut the sh*t! @Stuart 22

        Try addressing the point of the article. As a statistician would you be comfortable saying "xxxx EVER" if its within the bounds of the margins of error.

        In this article that isn't the crux of what Lewis is saying.

        He's saying the previous 3 increments that led to the "hottest years ever" were all well within the margins of error for his dataset - if the same is true for the NOAA and other datasets then saying "hottest ever" is a bit dubious.

        Forget whether Lewis is a warmist or denier - he's saying its very disingenuous to be making such headline grabbing statements.

        1. Stuart 22

          Re: Cut the sh*t! @Stuart 22

          "Try addressing the point of the article. As a statistician would you be comfortable saying "xxxx EVER" if its within the bounds of the margins of error."

          To begin with the issue is since when records began and not EVER. So the direct answer to your question is no.

          The semantic point is that is if 2014 recorded the highest temperature using the accepted measures. The answer is probably yes. Though we can have another argument about whether those are appropriate or not. But the margin of error is not really relevant as it is the same for each recent year. So while it is possible it isn't the probability it is.

          But this is a digression I was seeking to avoid. The sub heading "Global warming probably still on hold" only applies if you take a very short term view of the series and cannot see the difference between a pause (the last ten years) as opposed to a reversal seen in previous cyclical perturbations.

          But we can argue statistics till we are blue in the face and accuse each other of cherry picking. That's why I suggest we cut the cr*p and put our money on our carefully considered positions. And not one without risk. My analysis doesn't exclude the cooling expected if we have a massive volcanic eruption. I can't predict those. But I'm still prepared to put my money where my mouth is. Are you frit in responding?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Cut the sh*t! @Stuart 22

            So you would support the adjusting and fiddling with the raw data to fit the warmest message. They can't even use the same measuring stations every year.

            The other thing is that the old records didn't measure in the hundredth of a degree so why are they trying to do that now?

            Of course, if you massage the data enough you can get it to show anything you want which is what it appears they are doing.

            1. mikebartnz

              Re: Cut the sh*t! @Stuart 22

              It has been shown that in the USA they have actually been using phantom stations.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Cut the sh*t! @Stuart 22

            > But the margin of error is not really relevant as it is the same for each recent year. So while it is possible it isn't the probability it is.

            You're obviously not a statistician otherwise you would not have made such a stupid comment.

            The people taking these readings are taking samples. They're not measuring the temperature at all places on the planet simultaneously and continuously. Therefore, what they are doing is called "sampling". Sampling can only ever tell you a limited amount about the whole which is why we have the concept of error and confidence intervals.

            Within those bounds, you can not be said to have made any reasonable correlation to the population. Outside those bands, you can with a calculable level of probability.

        2. Domino

          Re: Cut the sh*t! @Stuart 22

          @Gordon 10: Forget whether Lewis is a warmist or denier - he's saying its very disingenuous to be making such headline grabbing statements.

          His headline has "NO" not "MAYBE"..

        3. lee7

          Re: Cut the sh*t! @Stuart 22

          Well actually, I think the article's author was trying to suggest that we stop taking action to prevent GW. Read the whole article, and that's the impression I get.

          I'm really confused as to his motivations. Assuming that he is wrong, and that little action is taken, and that as a consequence GW continues unabated, and indeed, accelerates, what then of the cost, and effect on our lifestyles?

          Really, I just don't get this kind of position; it seems like complete lunacy to me - even if you're just taking a position in order to stir debate (or "trolling" as it's more often termed) - it seems quite astonishingly stupid. So, there's debate as to the exact extent of GW. To go from that to "don't let the nasty government tell me how to live" is just loony. But that fits with every other article I've read by Page. Ironically I'm sure I've read him argue that we should use nuclear energy to prevent GW. Blimey, he might actually be right on something.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: Cut the sh*t! @Stuart 22

            @ lee7

            "Assuming that he is wrong, and that little action is taken, and that as a consequence GW continues unabated, and indeed, accelerates, what then of the cost, and effect on our lifestyles?"

            You do know that if you dont go to the place of worship your soul will go to hell. You also have to confess your sins etc etc. On top of that you must follow the right version because only one is right and every religion thinks its them. There are various books and they will point out their idea of proof regardless of scientific disproof and obvious snake oil statements which have been exposed.

            I assume since you believe the outcome could theoretically be so bad that you have signed up to religion? Because the outcome could cost you greatly. I assume you abandon all critical thought and submit to whoever claims to be the saviour to whatever ill they can claim to protect you from, even if you know its bull?

            You call him for trolling but then anyone not begging to be saved from the unknown fuzzy thing out there has been complaining of the sick trolling by the warmist cult. How many dumb statements and insane predictions have been trolled on the public? I lost count ages ago. And yet here is discussion, which is more than warmists allow. This is a place for thought and debate. Doesnt matter which way you may bias but you can read more about a topic which is so badly trolled on the public with adverts of drowning dogs and propaganda material which embarrasses the thinking population.

      2. Bruce Hoult

        Re: Cut the sh*t!

        I would place a reasonable sporting bet that it will be cooler in 2030 than it is now ... maybe not as cool as 1990, but maybe 1995.

        I should get pretty good odds on that, right?

        1. plrndl
          Happy

          Re: Cut the sh*t!

          It was pretty cool in the late 60's, but since then it's all gone to pot.

        2. Squander Two

          Re: Cut the sh*t!

          Why should we need to place our own personal bets when our governments have been placing massive multi-billion bets on this with our money for years? I'm forced to bet the CAGW alarmists are right every time I buy petrol or electricity or gas.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Cut the sh*t!

          "I would place a reasonable sporting bet that it will be cooler in 2030 than it is now"

          Well it's certainly possible if we look at the natural variances in the historical data, but it's less likely than it being colder assuming that global warming continues unabated - as seems likely.

          "I should get pretty good odds on that, right?"

          Yes - I would say at a guess at least 2:1.

      3. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        Re: Cut the sh*t!

        We can use any reasonable bucket of how that is measured.

        This is the key problem. There ain't one. The biggest problem with temperature data sets is that a significant number of ground stations which were originally located in the countryside upon establishment have ended with the grounds of the neigbouring metropolis over time.

        As a result the time series are:

        1. Not continuous while presented as such.

        2. The set within Eu/Western Russia and USA which is representative is actually quite small and covers only a relatively recent period of time when having automated stations with radio connectivity to the central office became technically feasible.

        3. I have yet to see a single study which instead of sucking numbers out of thin air (Berkley sets inclusive) uses strictly _ONLY_ stations which are outiside urban areas by more than 100km+. There are such stations (mostly coastal observations from stations associated with lighthouses), however there is no analysis which uses just them. Everyone finds it "essential" to stick into the equations Eu and USA data which is corrupted by _LOCAL_ industiral/urban heat.

        Note - I am not saying anything about CO2, models, etc. I just want to see statistics done on the only 100% clean dataset which is readily available - just stick solely to observations taken at maritime navigational facilities (lighthouses, etc) and throw out all the ones within 100km of a large city. I have yet to see any and I could not care less about the "scientific value of the guesstimate used in the correction factors for urban area data".

        1. Stuart 22

          Re: Cut the sh*t!

          "This is the key problem. There ain't one. The biggest problem with temperature data sets is that a significant number of ground stations which were originally located in the countryside upon establishment have ended with the grounds of the neigbouring metropolis over time."

          Please give people credit for not understanding the issue and trying to exclude it. I tried to do so by referring to the last 20 years against the next. That removes most of the urbanisation issues over the last century or so.

          There is no way I would want to con Lewis. It just whether there is a trend over 40 years of which 20 are yet to come. Can I add you to those who might wish to bet against me or are you frit?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Cut the sh*t!

            There is one reliable global source.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

            1. Fluffy Bunny
              Boffin

              Re: Cut the sh*t!

              "There is one reliable global source.

              http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/"

              Which, by the way, clearly shows that 2014 wasn't the warmest on record. About fifth in the last 20 years. Although the limits of the graph are too narrow. Temperatures were much higher in the recent past. Try here:

              http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Cut the sh*t!

                "Which, by the way, clearly shows that 2014 wasn't the warmest on record"

                This graph measures the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere - and only from 14 points. It does clearly show a continuing warming trend.

                The 'warmest on record' for 2014 is for global the average SURFACE temperature.

          2. Dazed and Confused

            Re: @Stuart

            I'll wager if we can change the range to 15 years instead of 20.

            I'll bet you one pint of beer that the temperature over the next 15 years will be the within the margin of error the same as it was over the last 15 years.

            15 years ago I'd have bet you that the temperature would have continued to rise. I would have been proved wrong and we could be happily sitting somewhere enjoying a jar together.

            Both bets would have been made on the basis that this is the prevailing trend, and is therefore most likely to continue.

        2. manning120

          Re: Cut the sh*t!

          Larger cities worldwide mean higher average temperatures. Why should we ignore that? It's one of the forcings. However, I agree that not adjusting the thermometer locations could exaggerate the effect of urban heat islands.

        3. manning120

          Re: Cut the sh*t!

          The urban heat island effect is anthropogenic warming. It can't be ignored. Larger cities worldwide means that that particular forcing is becoming more prominent. However, I agree that not adjusting how temperature readings are taken could result in an exaggeration of the overall effect of urban heat islands. I can't believe that scientists would ignore that problem.

        4. bep

          Re: Cut the sh*t!

          Your observation about the location of measuring points may be accurate but you may be failing to draw the correct conclusion from it.

          Increasing urbanisation (and destruction of forests etc.) is part of the problem, so there is no reason to exclude that data. Increasing population is also a factor. So the climate is probably getting warmer because we are emitting more CO2 because there are more of us in more developed situations which tends to degrade the things that mitigate CO2 in the atmosphere. The population people say the growth in numbers will slow down IF, especially, life-expectancy for children continues to improve. But will that happen if the climate continues to get hotter? That's the flip side to the economic development argument. Reducing CO2 is unlikely to create an economic disaster, it hasn't so far where it's been done, it just creates new industries (wind, solar etc.).

        5. Ralara

          Re: Cut the sh*t!

          100km of a city within western Europe?

          heh good luck.

        6. BlackBearBill

          Re: Cut the sh*t!

          Richard Muller, the founder of Berkley Earth, famously affirmed the accuracy of the global temperature record in 2012. Concerns about the lost Soviet stations and "urban heat islands", for instance, were ungrounded.

          His finding, which was very high profile at the time--announced in a WSJ editorial--was that the global temp reporting system was sound and that it was telling us exactly what climate scientists had been reporting: that record highs have been outnumbering record lows by 2/1 for a good long while

        7. Tom 13

          Re: statistics done on the only 100% clean dataset

          That won't help. There's good reason to include the data from the once rural now urban settings: it covers a significant and important part of the surface of the Earth.

          What you need (and what we don't have) is a way to filter the data for the corruption of the heat island. And there will never be consensus about what the correct filter is.

          Granted your proposed study would be interesting, but I'm not sure it would be informative. It too would be too small of a data set to project over the whole Earth.

          Full disclosure: I'm on the skeptical side of this. Despite the fact that we with an mean life span measured in the 70-80 year range regard 200 years of data as long, it's not even detectable for the cycles of our ice ages. In other words, we don't have a reliable baseline against which to compare anything.

        8. gzuckier

          Re: Cut the sh*t!

          1) Urban stations are individually adjusted to remove the urban heat island effect, based on trends in other local weather stations which are not part of the network. (Denialists know this; this is part of the "The data is worthless because its adjusted" bleat of the denier. They assert that adjusted data is worthless, and likewise if the data is not adjusted then it is worthless, as here because of the UHIs)

          "Extensive tests have shown that the urban heat island effects are no more than about 0.05°C up to 1990 in the global temperature records used in this chapter to depict climate change. Thus we have assumed an uncertainty of zero in global land-surface air temperature in 1900 due to urbanisation, linearly increasing to 0.06°C (two standard deviations 0.12°C) in 2000." http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm#2221

          2) It's not a oneway process where the monitoring station has become hotter because of more pavement, fewer trees, etc.; in many cases the monitoring station's location has become a park, or has become shadowed by buildings, tree growth, etc. Thus the individual adjustments above.

          "Using satellite night-lights-derived urban/rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and local-scale impacts dominating over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions." http://www.researchgate.net/publication/252960119_Assessment_of_Urban_Versus_Rural_In_Situ_Surface_Temperatures_in_the_Contiguous_United_States_No_Difference_Found

          3) Neither well established urban areas, nor areas which are currently becoming urbanized show a UHI trend that explains the scale of the AGW recorded:

          "We show examples of the UHIs at London and Vienna, where city center sites are warmer than surrounding rural locations. Both of these UHIs however do not contribute to warming trends over the 20th century because the influences of the cities on surface temperatures have not changed over this time. In the main part of the paper, for China, we compare a new homogenized station data set with gridded temperature products and attempt to assess possible urban influences using sea surface temperature (SST) data sets for the area east of the Chinese mainland. We show that all the land-based data sets for China agree exceptionally well and that their residual warming compared to the SST series since 1951 is relatively small compared to the large-scale warming. Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1°C decade−1 over the period 1951–2004, with true climatic warming accounting for 0.81°C over this period." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD009916/abstract

      4. David Pollard
        Thumb Up

        @Stuart 22 - with you on that

        I've got a hundred quid that says the average temperature based on a 'reasonable bucket' will be higher in the next twenty years than it was in the last twenty. If you can get Lewis to match this, with the pot going into a tracker fund or similar, winner takes all, then I'm on.

        Come to think about it, if the 'deniers' will offer longer odds than evens then it might be possible to crowd fund climate prevention measures this way. The wager package might be a nice present to leave to one's grandchildren. I wonder what the tax position is?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Stuart 22 - with you on that

          I am prepared to bet two Kruger Rands that in the next 20 years the average temp will be higher. I make the odds 100 to 1

        2. jebdra

          $100 says it's getting warmer

          Nice idea, but I think you'll find that any real climate prevention measures will cost considerable more than $100 per person.

      5. flearider
        Childcatcher

        Re: Cut the sh*t!

        the only reason noaa has higher findings is they changed the way the use the information given to them. which I believe they have done 4 times now but always the temps go up ..

        the last 30+ years we have had a very active sun more heat ..so the first part of that time the temps rose then it equalled out ..last 15yrs or so

        now we enter another time of inactive sun emissions so it's going to get colder .. how much well we are not sure how long for ? best guess is 35+ yrs any longer and we are sure to lose 25%+ of the population on this rock we call home ..

        1. pierce

          Re: Cut the sh*t!

          solar activity such as sunspots and flares has NO measurable impact on the amount of sunlight and heat radiated. just because the sun is or isn't active does NOT mean its warmer/colder.

          1. Dan Paul

            Re: Cut the sh*t! @pierce

            Solar activity has a direct effect on the amount of the Suns energy being delivered to Earth.

            Solar Activity has way more validity than tree rings relative to actual temperatures. IT can be actually MEASURED.

            Tree rings and ice cores are STRICTLY subjective "measurements" that can only be inferred.

      6. Muncher23

        Re: Cut the sh*t!

        There have been a few AGW bets -- do a search on Armstrong-Gore (of course Gore didn't have the courage of his convictions) and there is the Evans-Schimdt bet and you can even bet for charity at Notrickszone.

      7. Al Black

        Re: Cut the sh*t!

        The hypothesis is that Global Warming stopped around the turn of the Millenium, some say 1998, some say 2000. Either way all argee that it was warming from 1975 to 1998, so your bet is dishonest. Make it 15 years and you're on.

        Al

      8. Marshalltown

        Re: Cut the sh*t!

        Ah, but which data will you be using to estimate that average. As it is, the estimated temperature change over the last century is pretty weak. When you research the adjustments applied to the raw data, and note among other things that these adjustments ALL BY THEMSELVES would impose a mild warming trend on raw series that is a constant value, then you have a problem. The adjustments are biased and the justifications are mostly either weak, or nonexistent. Only the TOBS seems to make any sort of rational sense. At the same the "adjustment" of historical data downward as you move into the past with an imposed trend is a problem. Some, possibly most, of the methodological decisions that drive these adjustments are clearly "theory" driven rather than developed to address empirical reality. You want to remember Kevin Trenberth's heart-felt complaint in the Climategate emails. He states in the same email where he describes the climate science community's inability to detect ocean warming as a travesty, that the data MUST be wrong. That, my lad, would have set Sir Francis spinning. The entire point of the scientific method as delineated by Bacon was to remove the observer's assumptions as far from the reality of the experiment as possible. To adjust the data prior to analysis based upon the theory being tested is to engage in echo-chamber science. No publication on climate change should report "analytical" results on adjusted data without summarizing the comparable results from the raw data as well. The GISS announcement regarding 2014 as the "hottest" actual assigned a probability of 38% to that assertion if you read the text. That would mean that in all likelihood, 2014 was nothing special with a 62% certainty. BEST's results in any other field using statistical methods would not have been reported, let alone attention drawn to the "rise." It was not significantly different from no change. If you are, as you say, a professional time series analyst, then you know that.

    2. TheVogon

      Re: Well

      "Our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01 C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty (0.05 C). Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year."

      Riiiight - but they are all in the last decade - so if the 3 warmest years since the 1800s are in the last decade, that sort of supports the global warming thing right? You are just arguing about the order of the deckchairs on the Titanic. Not to mention ignoring other overwhelming observable evidence like the on-going sea level rises every year, and that the oceans were the warmest on record too...

      1. TheTick

        Re: Well

        "so if the 3 warmest years since the 1800s are in the last decade, that sort of supports the global warming thing right? "

        It supports global warming from the 1800's (the end of the little ice age or thereabouts), it doesn't support anthropogenic global warming. Presumably something stopped the little ice age and I doubt there was enough CO2 released in the 18th & 19th centuries to be the cause of that temperature rise.

        Up until the late 90's there was a correlation between increased CO2, due to mankind's industry, and temperature, but that correlation between the two appears to have broken down in the last 15 years.

        My conclusion is that no one knows yet but that further study is warranted before governments start taxing the crap out of us and telling us how to live.

        1. TheVogon

          Re: Well

          "it doesn't support anthropogenic global warming. "

          Yes it does when you match it to the CO2 readings for the last 150 years. Which by the way have just gone over 400 parts per million - for the first time in the last 20 million years.

          "Presumably something stopped the little ice age"

          Presumably you need to Bing Maunder Minimum.

          "that correlation between the two appears to have broken down in the last 15 years"

          No - no it doesn't. The correlation is still well within existing historical variations.

          "I doubt there was enough CO2 released in the 18th & 19th centuries to be the cause of that temperature rise"

          Sounds very scientific.

          That a) global warming is happening and than b) it is at least significantly anthropomorphic in nature have not been in any scientific doubt whatsoever for at least a decade now. You might want to argue about the impacts or what to do about, it but denying it is happening and that we are at least partly to blame is simply laughable.

          nb - we are also now statistically about 99% sure that man is not just a significant cause, but is the primary cause of global warming.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Well

            'nb - we are also now statistically about 99% sure that man is not just a significant cause, but is the primary cause of global warming.'

            What the !!! is that !!!

            That statement would seem to be sadly disconnected from reality and any valid form of statistical analysis.

            This sort of hysterical myth, paints a very sad picture for humanities survival.

            Forget global warming, the real threat to the survival of the species is this sort of absurd twisting of the truth to support a just so story, and the number of people who actually believe it.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Well

              "What the !!! is that !!!"

              The view of the many scientists involved with the IPCC climate reports. In words:

              "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

              …It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."

        2. Stuart 22

          Re: Well

          "Up until the late 90's there was a correlation between increased CO2, due to mankind's industry, and temperature, but that correlation between the two appears to have broken down in the last 15 years."

          I think you need to review your understanding of correlation. If you look at the timeseries in the last 50 years or so you will observe two distinct 'reversals' where temperatures fell. This shows not unexpectedly that other factors affect the annual temperature in the short term. The usual culprits are weather and water currents that behave cyclically. They have had a dramatic short term effect but little effect long term.

          Hence what should worry people with a more skeptic view of global warming is that the last ten years are at best a pause and not a reversal as before. Does this mean there is not a stronger underlying warming or just that the expected cooling cycles are diminished? I don't know the answer. But to say this has destroyed the previous correlation requires strong evidence. Would you like to share it with us?

          1. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: Well

            "Hence what should worry people with a more skeptic view of global warming is that the last ten years are at best a pause and not a reversal as before."

            They aren't even a pause. Oceans have continued warming and it takes a shitload more energy to heat those up than the atmosphere.

        3. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Well

          "Presumably something stopped the little ice age"

          Most likely sunspots.

          The little ice age was more-or-less simultaneous with the Maunder minimum.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Well

          "...trapped in the blazing cinema/mutely screaming I TOLD YOU SO from melting eyeballs as the whitehot fireball dissolves the Cathedral..."

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Well

        How do you justify your comments when the unadjusted data does not?

      3. This post has been deleted by its author

      4. Adam Selene

        Re: Well

        "Riiiight - but they are all in the last decade - so if the 3 warmest years since the 1800s are in the last decade, that sort of supports the global warming thing right?"

        Yes is supports the idea of global warming but it also shows the role that Co2 has, may be greatly over estimated.

        If over the course of the last decade the 3 hottest years are on record but of a similar record level but literally gigatons of Co2 have been released suggests that our understanding of Co2 is off and we need to be reexamined the situation so we can properly take action.

        Global warming has been empirically shown and highly correlated to human action however if co2 levels have jumped though the roof and temperature for the last decade has been in the same range the correlation between Co2 and temperature needs to be reexamined.

        Think of it as a trail: We are about to send the wrong guy to jail.

        1. tom dial Silver badge

          Re: Well

          "Global warming has been empirically shown and highly correlated to human action however if co2 levels have jumped though the roof and temperature for the last decade has been in the same range the correlation between Co2 and temperature needs to be reexamined."

          Maybe. Earth and its atmosphere have a good deal of thermal mass, which one would expect to produce a significant lag between the introduction of carbon dioxide and other similar contaminants and the warming effect that they bring. I have not seen this discussed quantitatively, but it seems likely that it could be, and has, been done. The atmosphere is big and dispersion of the additional carbon dioxide might take several years to diffuse; and the additional retained energy could take some more years to raise the temperature noticeably.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Well

          If you look at the last 1000 million years, there is no correlation between co2 and higher temperature.

          In fact, at certain times there is a reverse correlation.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.