6 ms·

> it is NOT POSSIBLE AT ALL to derive any conclusion from looking at it, other than we are heating the planet fast. No. You're coming to a conclusion based on

> it is NOT POSSIBLE AT ALL to derive any conclusion from looking at it, other than we are heating the planet fast. No. You're coming to a conclusion based on some internalized facts that may not be internalized by the people you're referring to. Looking at the graph doesn't tell you anything at all about heat. It tells you about CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

snowwrestler 4y ago
I mean, the “internalized facts” are just high school level chemistry. The only way the graph doesn’t tell us anything about heat is if we intentionally separate it from any context or larger system of knowledge. It’s like saying your car’s gas gauge doesn’t tell you anything about how far you can drive, just how much gas you have in the tank.
- native_samples 4y ago
  "The only way the graph doesn’t tell us anything about heat is if we intentionally separate it from any context or larger system of knowledge." That's nonsense. Temperature isn't a direct function of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even climatologists don't believe it's that simple. That's why there's so much debate about the true value of ECS, that's why they spent much of the 2010s trying to explain the pause in global warming by reference to heat absorption of the oceans, etc (they since changed the mind and now argue that they were simply failing to correctly measure temperatures for decades, which is even worse). The false belief that climate = CO2 levels is one of the things that creates skepticism about climatology, because anyone who bothers to check the actual facts instead of relying on "high school level chemistry" will immediately see that it's false. Moreover if it were actually that simple then there'd be no need to worry because if you simply map CO2 level increases to temperature increases then you don't get anything even close to a doomsday scenario. All the "we need to reach net zero yesterday" type claims are predicated on hypothetical and quite complicated feedback loops that involve far more than just a straight mapping of temperature=CO2 levels.
  - snowwrestler 4y ago
    You originally said the graph doesn’t tell us anything about heat. Now you’re arguing that it doesn’t tell us everything about heat. Which is obviously correct; but not what you started out with. Edit: I see now that you’re not the person I replied to, sorry. I agree with you that one CO2 graph is not the whole story. It’s a big piece, though.
    - native_samples 4y ago
      It might be, but it's also possible that the larger body of context or knowledge is flawed in some way. Not so much the core physics of CO2 but the scalings of things. For instance some climatologists believe that natural cycles dominate anything done by humans. That isn't something you can prove or disprove from simply looking at a graph of CO2 and temperature together.
- tejohnso 4y ago
  > It’s like saying your car’s gas gauge doesn’t tell you anything about how far you can drive, just how much gas you have in the tank. People have direct experience with the movement of their gas gauge and the distance they travel. They come to know directly that a certain point on the gauge represents a certain available distance to travel. They don't need to know anything about how the gas interacts with the air, and eventually ends up involved in a combustion reaction. There's no such direct experience with CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and heating. And atmospheric temperature is wildly variable on day to day time scales so it's impossible to make such a simple, direct, one to one association between them. You expect most people to have this particular grasp of high school level chemistry (and physics, I'd say), to the point where the interaction between CO2 and infrared radiation is accepted and internalized so well that one can directly jump from a graph of CO2 concentration to a conclusion about atmospheric heating. I'd say you're intentionally over simplifying. You have a conclusion you've come to, and you just expect others to accept it based on your point of view and your experience.

snowwrestler 4y ago

I mean, the “internalized facts” are just high school level chemistry. The only way the graph doesn’t tell us anything about heat is if we intentionally separate it from any context or larger system of knowledge. It’s like saying your car’s gas gauge doesn’t tell you anything about how far you can drive, just how much gas you have in the tank.

native_samples 4y ago
"The only way the graph doesn’t tell us anything about heat is if we intentionally separate it from any context or larger system of knowledge." That's nonsense. Temperature isn't a direct function of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even climatologists don't believe it's that simple. That's why there's so much debate about the true value of ECS, that's why they spent much of the 2010s trying to explain the pause in global warming by reference to heat absorption of the oceans, etc (they since changed the mind and now argue that they were simply failing to correctly measure temperatures for decades, which is even worse). The false belief that climate = CO2 levels is one of the things that creates skepticism about climatology, because anyone who bothers to check the actual facts instead of relying on "high school level chemistry" will immediately see that it's false. Moreover if it were actually that simple then there'd be no need to worry because if you simply map CO2 level increases to temperature increases then you don't get anything even close to a doomsday scenario. All the "we need to reach net zero yesterday" type claims are predicated on hypothetical and quite complicated feedback loops that involve far more than just a straight mapping of temperature=CO2 levels.
- snowwrestler 4y ago
  You originally said the graph doesn’t tell us anything about heat. Now you’re arguing that it doesn’t tell us everything about heat. Which is obviously correct; but not what you started out with. Edit: I see now that you’re not the person I replied to, sorry. I agree with you that one CO2 graph is not the whole story. It’s a big piece, though.
  - native_samples 4y ago
    It might be, but it's also possible that the larger body of context or knowledge is flawed in some way. Not so much the core physics of CO2 but the scalings of things. For instance some climatologists believe that natural cycles dominate anything done by humans. That isn't something you can prove or disprove from simply looking at a graph of CO2 and temperature together.
tejohnso 4y ago
> It’s like saying your car’s gas gauge doesn’t tell you anything about how far you can drive, just how much gas you have in the tank. People have direct experience with the movement of their gas gauge and the distance they travel. They come to know directly that a certain point on the gauge represents a certain available distance to travel. They don't need to know anything about how the gas interacts with the air, and eventually ends up involved in a combustion reaction. There's no such direct experience with CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and heating. And atmospheric temperature is wildly variable on day to day time scales so it's impossible to make such a simple, direct, one to one association between them. You expect most people to have this particular grasp of high school level chemistry (and physics, I'd say), to the point where the interaction between CO2 and infrared radiation is accepted and internalized so well that one can directly jump from a graph of CO2 concentration to a conclusion about atmospheric heating. I'd say you're intentionally over simplifying. You have a conclusion you've come to, and you just expect others to accept it based on your point of view and your experience.