Dirac
Lv 4
Dirac asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 3 months ago

What do you think of the BEST fit of temperature to CO2 and volcanoes?

This question replaces one deleted by an anti-science troll.

Update:

There is some confusion about the graph. The black curve is the BEST land surface temperature, while the red line is a regression of that against a linear combination of the logarithm of CO2 concentration and volcanic sulfate emissions. Adding a proxy for solar activity did not improve the fit.

Update 2:

The y-axis is temperature, the x-axis is time. Could someone please help the geologist understand this?

Attachment image

10 Answers

Relevance
  • Jeff M
    Lv 7
    3 months ago

    As with every large volcanic eruption there is a decrease in temperature for a number of years until stratospheric aerosols rain out. You can clearly see where large volcanic eruptions occurred with the large decreases in temperatures globally for a number of years at a time. I am surprised JimZ, being a geologist, does not recognize this. And the thing about volcanic eruptions is that when the temperatures dip for a number of years so does CO2. This is because the upper oceans cool with the increased aerosol activity heightening the carbon sink.

  • Anonymous
    3 months ago

    Co2 × mcit4 =48216 ÷2×2 ~ 666 - 3x33.

  • Anonymous
    3 months ago

    notice:

    This question is currently* being controlled by a bot. That means that the question can't be moved from its current category. If it is moved to any other category, the bot automatically returns it to Global Warming in ~2 minutes.

  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    3 months ago

    I'm not sure where volcanoes fit in there. When you are graphing two different things on the same graph with different scales, making them "fit" is arbitrary. We know that CO2 and temperature don't correlate very well so manipulating a graph to try show they do is dishonest. We have measurements of CO2 going back to the 1950s on Mauna Loa. If you are selecting other proxies for your supposed CO2 concentrations that needs to be provided. Just putting a line on there might convince those that are gullible but to me it is an easily seen farce. It takes up to 150 years for fern to form. Trying to paste past proxies onto a different measured recent proxy reminds me of what Mann did pasting recent measured temperatures on tree ring proxies because the tree ring proxies didn't show what he wanted them to.

    You said in my comments that there is one scale. There is temperature and CO2 concentration on one axis and time on the other. It really isn't that complicated. You might want to go back and take some remedial courses on how to read graphs. Do your honestly think temperature and CO2 are on the same scale? Wow.

    • Dirac
      Lv 4
      3 months agoReport

      JimZ, in case you haven't figured it out by now, CO2 is not on the scale at all.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 3 months ago

    It shows a good fit and high correlation between the two curves - although the differing variability will reduce the r-squared figures somewhat.

    However, staring at graphs is not the best way to view the data although it is always recommended as a starting point. What is required is the result of some lagged cross correlations to see if one curve leads the other.

    For instance, you can look at the Vostok Ice Core data for as long as you like but you cannot be sure of the 800 year lag until you do some math(s).

  • 3 months ago

    Yea it really beats me dude

    • Dirac
      Lv 4
      3 months agoReport

      Except I'm not--I do this for my amusement, or possibly my annoyance.

  • Notice:

    This question is currently* being controlled by a bot. That means that the question can't be moved from its current category. If it is moved to any other category, the bot automatically returns it to Global Warming in ~2 minutes.

    You can see this for yourself with your Level 7 account:

    Move this question to ANY category

    Wait about two minutes

    Hit your Refresh button

    The question will have returned to Global Wamring

    Bot tagging questions is against Yahoo policy. The OP, himself, is unable to move his own question.

    Bot tagging is done by paid trolls.

    * Note that a question might or might not be bot tagged at any particular point. I've been exposing the paid trolls' bot tagging. Every time I point out a question being bot tagged--they take it off the bot. You can however, see the bot in action with many other troll questions here.

    • You probably thought you were battling a Level 7, but you were actually battling a bot! Paid trolls like Super Hans have been playing this game here for YEARS!

  • Anonymous
    3 months ago

    As I suspected all along, its settled science, now what to do about it....

    • Yeah, no answer from our resident liar. You assholes always claim you want to "discuss" and "debate," so here's your chance.

  • 3 months ago

    Global temperature fits very well with carbon dioxide concentration. But, given that volcanoes emit only about 1% of the carbon dioxide that humans do, volcanoes have very little effect on temperature. Volcanic aerosols do cause a short term drop in temperature.

    https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/how-ma...

    It is indeed unfortunate that the original question was deleted. It is a shame that Yahoo Joker and his socks are against free speech.

  • 3 months ago

    I think it is pretty clear that our planet is warming due, primarily, to our CO2 emissions. We shouldn't be surprised by graphs like this anymore - we've known this for almost 40 years. In Europe, we have moved past the point of it being contentious or an issue for debate.

    The key thing about that graph is it isn't linear. Our CO2 emissions grow, this adds to the CO2 already there since it can have a long lifetime mixed in the atmosphere (up to a century before absorption) so the planet is going to get warmer still.

    The issue is how will a continuously warming world affect the kids in our primary schools and their kids. And the problem I have is that some skeptics are applying a risk management strategy of 'Despite the evidence being presented to me, I personally don't think the impact is worth worrying about, so let's do nothing'. Imagine if I applied that to patients in the hospital - I don't accept the blood test results, I personally don't think the child has measles, so let's do nothing'!

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.