Show more

@freemo hey wait. All we both can see on the chart, there's nothing but correlation. So can you say more about causation as you planned to, first?

@pschwede Well we dont have to, not exactly, because of #3... think about it like this...

So if we accept there is strong correlation between temperature and CO2 that means either changes in temperature effect the world in a way that causes CO2 levels to change. Or CO2 levels cause the temperature to change, or perhaps even both, where changing one always changes the other.

Whichever of these it is all we need to do is ask ourselves a few simple questions:

How much has the CO2 changed in recent years?

How much CO2 have humans put into the atmosphere in that time?

Is the portion of CO2 increased in the atmosphere mostly accounted for by human processes such as pollution or is the volume much greater than the known human contribution?

Well earlier you said you conceded point 3 which was that humans contributed the bulk of the change int he CO2. So if you recognize this fact, then the fact that we can observe the temperature changing exactly the same as the correlation shown historically, we can therefore conclude that a change in CO2 is the causative agent resulting in the change in temperature. After all if it was the other way around then we wouldnt see any change in temperature from all the CO2 we are dumping, yet the correlation continues to track just as perfectly as it did historically.

@freemo no need to talk about 3 if we cannot reason about the consequences to be made in the first place. However, an anthropogenic change of temperature is way more plausible to me. E.g. cities in Germany are on average 2K warmer than the environment. With increase of urban areas in Germany, the warmer Germany gets. Globally, similar urban changes can be observed.

If CO2 ist only a consequence of this, talking about CO2-taxes would be plain nonsense.

@pschwede Sure, but i just proved in the last statement why we know that isnt the case. So your point has become moot. Unless you can explain the obvious contradiction.

@freemo well your own source seemingly contradicts 3 as it reveals a very typical saw tooth pattern much like we can observe within the last 169 years.

@pschwede Huh? How does a saw tooth pattern in any way contradict point 3? I lost ya on that claim.

@pschwede Yea that was #2, but the saw tooth pattern doesnt debunk the statement we never saw a pattern like this before... The saw tooth int he chart is over the course of millions of years. The saw tooth spike we are currently int he middle of is over the course of a 100. so no that pattern was never seen historically (a spike that fast, just never happened)

@freemo are the measurements of recent data reconstuctable from archeological findings already so that we can compare?

@pschwede Im not sure i understand the question. We are able of reconstructing historically both temperature and CO2 yea.

@freemo nevermind. I assume we take 169 years of direct measurements and correlate them with plausible remainings in the ground/ice. I don't know how stable those are over time anyway. If not then we would of course think that our high concentrations must be really high because we cannot find anything similar but not because of never-existence, rather because of decay.

@freemo overall we can agree that discussions about invisible gasses relies very - if not too - much on trust as facts can be ignored, denied and forgotten too easily.

@pschwede I mean to the uneducated facts can certainly be ignored denied or forgotten, sure. But scientists actually prove their facts and demonstrate why it is. The truth is we can very easily and clearly test "invisible gases" for these effects. So no trust needed.

Like i said i did the experiments myself when i was younger. They arent particularly hard to do and requires no trust, you can do it yourself.

@freemo democracies deal with the diversely educated though. There are clearer facts to talk about.

@freemo I mean we're not talking about some cooling liquid in fridges few engineers know about. We are talking about breathe.

@pschwede Wait how are we talking about breath? You mean because we exhale CO2? Well we dont exhale anywhere near pure CO2 in fact CO2 is only a small percentage of what we exhale.

@freemo we do exhale co2 and that's how we generate energy to do anything. In fact we produce more co2 by taking stairs than by taking the lift. So talking about invisible gasses affects each person. Politics already attempted taking taxes accordingly to co2 in off-air from offices.

@freemo (I mean we generate energy by our metabolism of which exhaling co2 is one of many results)

@pschwede I mean yea, there are many natural sources of CO2, for sure.

@freemo if you attribute current climate changes to human behavior and want explanation (eg. to legitimate political measurements) then you have to correlate heat with everything you can find. human population is one of them.

@pschwede No you dont that makes no sense, thats not how Data science works in any field.

It seems your really grasping at straws to justify a prejudice that has no basis here in reality. Again people rarely agree on this stuff, especially when its political like climate change. The fact that every single person who has invested serious time studying this agrees should tell you something if your not going to do the research yourself.

I mean ive shown you a series of very simple and straight forward experiments that demonstrate quite clearly the reality of climate change. Saying We havent correlated everything in the universe therefore its bad science, is frankly, rather absurd.

Afterall even if we did show something else correlated that wouldnt debunk anything. It would just prove there is more than one thing that is effected by CO2 and temperature.

Afterall the human population will also correlate to CO2, even if it correlates less closely than temperature.The fact that this is true doesnt debunk the assertion that CO2 effects temperature, it jsut means that the human population also effects CO2.

So really no matter how you look at that argument its a very weak one.I really think you should take some time to reflect on how your letting your biases drive your ability to objectively evaluate data, rather than trying to draw conclusions from data.

I dont mean this as an attack, I dont think you are absurd, only that your argument seems to be, which is more a sign of cognitive bias than anything about your abilities. I'm sure if you take the time to study this from a more objective perspective you'd be capable of understanding it.

@freemo "It seems your really grasping at straws to justify a prejudice that has no basis here in reality." Stop with that straws. Science is one huge straws grasping on its own! Everyone I talk with (scientists among them) cannot completely explain the climate change. Hence I remain sceptic while looking for other ways to avoid larger catastrophes. They must be avoided despite the topic being too complex to be fully understood. Do you understand?

All the statistics are flawed. Should we use them then? No because they can be used against us! In fact they are obviously!
Instead look out for explanations that people can get their heads around and make clear who is to blame. Otherwise we're stuck.

The latter is supported by the tendency of most things being multi-causal. CO2 is not the only GHG and the sun is not the only heat producer. I'm almost sure there's more to it.

What you just told me can be told to any of those who see the data and analyze the problem. We're all biased at least because we only observed hundreds of years with a very unique temp curve in order to describe the tenthousands of a climate.

@pschwede I've spoken to a LOT of people who devoted their life to studying climate change. Every single one of them can completely understand it. Can you actually list some of these scientists? Are they even published in the field of climate change or are you talking about scientists in totally different fields?

@freemo I didn't say that they didn't think they understood it. They just accepted to trust other scientists at a certain point and took other's results for granted.
But scientists and non-scientists act different here.

@pschwede Well yea outside of their field they will, and should trust other scientists. If you want to see if anyone fully understands it you just ask the people who studied it. The opinion of someone who knows quantum mechanics says very little about how well we understand climate.

The fact is we do know, very well, how it all works, your just asking people who never bothered to learn it, so no wonder you hear they dont know.

@freemo A quantum physicist could explain why CO2 absorbs heat while a geographic could explain ice cores to me. None of them fully understands the other since as you said, you obviously need to study the other field full time.

Some physicists even doubt that CO2 "absorbs IR". So what now?

@pschwede Well people who study climate study the base fields they need to understand it. You dont need quantum mechanics just some basic chemisty to understand absorbing IR, plus a little geology too and other things.

@freemo when you start to categorize fields into "basics" and non-basics; you are already taking things for granted. What if CO2 behav in labs doesn't scale to atmospheres? You wouldn't assume otherwise because of the "basics", would you? That's bias.

@pschwede Thats why we dont rely on any one thing.. yea the basics all show us rather clearly that CO2 acts the way. we think. But your right by itself it isnt enough. thats why we. have thousands of different experiments all testing the same theory from a different angle, all confirming it.

Its a bit like the flat earther debate. There are simple experiments anyone can do "basic" list stick a rod int he ground measure some shadows and with some basic math conclude the earth is round. But then you get into weird edge cases with atmospheric refraction and everything else. Yea we **can** make the topic more complex, and we even do. When we do all the conclusions still add up though and we show the basic case is still valid. Even once we account for refraction and everything else, the earth is still round.

Same here. we have basic experiments that are very simple and very clearly show the truth of climate change. Sure we can and will make more complex experiments too, just to test all the weird edge cases on the off chance maybe there is more to it. But all those edge cases also proved the basic case true. So, naturally, we accept that.

@freemo In the aspect about trust it is exactly like with flat-earthers.

I will replicate the two bottle experiment as soon as I can just to remove one of my doubts.

@pschwede That is a simplified version of the one we would do in a proper lab. but the results should be the same as the proper experiment.

@pschwede Did you mean sensor? depends on the setup. Depending on what you are trying to show you may not need an IR sensor itself. Usually we dont do an experiment one way. There are hundreds of ways the same experiment can be conducted just to verify it all works given different variables

@pschwede in the simplest form you dont need an ir sensor. Just a hot mass in two nested chamers and a temp probe. The IR sensor replaces the temp probe.

@freemo I am thinking about temperature fundamentally. Possibly CO2 just translates energy quantities easier into molecular motion than other gases.
But that wouldn't have any climatic consequences because the amount of energy would not change and thus won't hurt anyone.


1) how would you test your theory

2) if this were true why would it debunk the theory?

I mean there is some truth to it. CO2 converts IR energy into molecular motion more easily than a gas that isnt a GH Gas. Thats really all it means to be opaque int he first place. Just not sure why that would debunk the GH theory.

@freemo Thought a little more and now I think one cannot debunk the GH theory if that two bottle experiment succeeds. We should pull CO2 out of the air as quickly as possible using cheap and decentralized technology. Any ideas?

@pschwede Glad to hear!

Well plenty of technology ideas out there. But considering plants already do this perhaps our best bet is to plant more of those.

I mean sure we could build a device that pulls CO2 out of the air,and hook up some solar panels to power it and distribute them around the planet. But I think trees might be cheaper :)

If we really want a non-bio tech solution the best I can think of is using zeolite under pressure to selectively remove the CO2. But i still doubt it would be more efficient than a tree.

@freemo @pschwede

I wouldn't bet on plants - as beatiful, wonderful, versatile and multi purposeful as they are - being more efficient at removing CO2 from the atmosphere than technical solutions.
I've come across at least one scientific publication that stated that photosynthesis is rather inefficient at capturing the energy of sun light and converting it into chemical compound, compared to apparatuses.

Just to add another piece of context to this.

Plants might not be effective/efficient enough to pull enough CO2 in their current natural genetic setup ... but as this awesome talk suggests, plants could maybe be modified to be _the_ essential factor that will save us all:

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.

No hate, No censorship. Be kind, be respectful

We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.