For the past 800,000 years, CO2 levels increased or decreased in response to Earth’s temperature. Is it reasonable to predict the opposite is true now that CO2 levels drive temperature?
Would you be kind enough to pose the same question to ChatGPT and then discuss its response.
Do you agree, disagree, or have a different explanation?
The first statement in the query comes word-for-word from the following website (MIT)
Good and provocative as always. I would love to see you discuss climate migration claims as part of this. Just listened to this podcast, which made me think these claims need you.
I've not read all the comments, but so far, all the discussion of event frequency- and hence frequentist statistics- has taken been confined to a probabilistic distribution of events from a population distributed around a mean - a Gaussian bell curve (vis Rapp & Smopcakes). Gaussian analysis assumes all events are independent. Calculation of chance is not affected by short term change, which raises a high bar to disprove the null hypothesis, which is that the long term mean is not shifting. (Of course, there is also bias in the long term mean based on evolving technology and the short historical record.)
Climate is a complex system infested with cycles and positive and negative feedbacks. Unlike Blackjack, climate events are not independent if they emerge from a system with asymmetric feedbacks. Should positive feedback play a major role, outcomes will deviate away from the Gaussian mean and generate a skewed distribution in the direction of change. As Roger P demonstrates, Gaussian statistics detects this slowly, because each outcome is random.
I suggest that Bayesian probability can provide a useful perspective when interpreting extreme events. Bayesian statistics develops confidence based on comparing "prior probability" with new evidence. In its simplest form, it eliminates false positives by re-testing, like repeating an error-prone test after testing positive for cancer or Covid. In this context , we ask, given that we found a shorter interval between tornadoes or intense storms earlier in hurricane season, whether the interval is shorter, or intensity of the next storm is higher. That builds confidence in the Bayesian model, and also be revised with each event. The current hurricane season is a natural candidate to try this method out!
Roger: It does not matter what you post, or for that matter what anyone posts on any climate-related blog, because there will always be a fraction of re-posts from the public that stray totally from your topic, and make bold assertions that (as one poster below says) "I have developed absolute proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming". There is a population out there of people who believe this fairy tale, and they are anxious to promulgate their beliefs. There are blogs where people of this persuasion agree with one another repeatedly on this point, such as "climate etc". You've made it clear many times that you think rising CO2 does affect climate, particularly global warming. The question of whether and how much CO2 affects extreme events is difficult to unravel, as you have explained, because of the infrequency of events, and the many changes aside from climate that occurred that affect comparisons of the present to the past, and you have done a great job disentangling these factors to arrive at sensible statistical conclusions. But in this particular post it seems to me that one of your arguments is merely semantic. Yes indeed, climate change does not produce extreme events. But the real question is whether and how much whatever produces climate change also produces extreme events as an integral part of "climate change".
The "fairy tale" is the belief that CO2 actually has a climatic effect.
Your inability to understand my proof does not speak well of your intelligence!
The control knob for our climate is simply changing levels of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere. Increase them, as after a VEI4 volcanic eruption, and it cools down. Decrease them, as the result of "Clean Air" efforts, and it warms up.
Apart from seasonal and diurnal variations, there is not a single change in Earth's temperatures that cannot be explained by changing SO2 aerosol levels, including El Ninos, La Ninas, and Ice Ages.
Thanks Don ... In this series we will get to these issues. If we are to discuss "climate change" as a scientific topic (rather than a social or political artifact) then we need a precise definition, and the IPCC is quite clear on this. Stay tuned much more to come!
Roger: Update: Facebook restored my post, saying it was a "technology error." Yeah, right! Something is seriously wrong here. This is the second time Facebook has done this to me and they've threatened to cut me off if I keep sharing these posts. I know you complained earlier. did they ever get back to you w an explanation?
Roger, great piece. I again tried to share this on Facebook and it was promptly REMOVED, w the statement that it went against "community standards." Are they doing this to all posts from The Honest Broker? Looks like it! I've always thought you've bent over backwards to give the Michael Mann/RCP 8.5 Crowd the benefit of the doubt. But I would not be the least bit surprised if it was those guys or "Mean Girl" Paul Krugman pressuring Facebook to block you.
"Roger, great piece. I again tried to share this on Facebook and it was promptly REMOVED, w the statement that it went against "community standards." Are they doing this to all posts from The Honest Broker? Looks like it!"
Try removing the picture, and only including the hyperlink. I think you'll find that if you only include the hyperlink (without the picture), the hyperlink won't be blocked.
I am going to be a "wet blanket", but I have developed absolute proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming, and this needs to be recognized so that the actual cause of our warming climate can be addressed.
Circa 1980, two things were happening:
CO2 emissions, as measured at the Mauna Loa observatory were rising, primarily due to human activity, and it was hypothesized that, as in a greenhouse, it would cause temperatures to rise because of its alleged heat-trapping properties in our atmosphere.
In the run-up to 1980, large amounts of industrial Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) aerosol emissions (micron-sized droplets of Sulfuric Acid, H2SO4), were also accumulating the troposphere, which, when combined with moisture, form Acid Rain, which can kill vegetation and fish in small bodies of water, as well as cause health concerns.
As a result, "Clean Air" efforts to reduce the amount of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere were introduced in the 1970's, and, after peaking at 139 million tons in 1980, they gradually fell to 73 million tons by 2022 As the air became less polluted, the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth's surface increased, and warming naturally occurred.
This inevitable warming due to the less polluted air is totally ignored by modelers and climate researchers alike, and it is so large that it easily accounts for ALL of our modern warming!
In 2020, low-sulfur fuels were mandated for maritime shipping, and the resultant decrease in atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels may be the cause of the heat waves and droughts now occurring around the world.
I'm grateful for your reasoning and your careful elucidation. Your argument makes sense to me, especially in terms of characteristics such as mean and variation. But what about time trends? Suppose data show a steady trend upward over time. Couldn't that be a cause of the next observation being higher?
This is going to be a good series. The loaded deck example reminds me of counting cards at the blackjack table (which works well until you are escorted out of the casino). I look forward to hearing that longer discussion why humans are defined outside the climate system. Ditto external forcing from the sun and volcanoes.
But…isn’t this just semantics? Seems like a lot of math just to demonstrate that “climate change” is not the best choice of words. Somebody correct me if I am wrong please.
Clear and understandable examples, and I really appreciate this post. But, as you say, those already committed to belief contrary to this will be difficult to convince.
"Neither climate nor climate change cause, fuel, or influence weather."
I love where this is going.
While math was necessary in my chosen field of engineering, statistics was not my strong "suit". I will struggle along to absorb as much as I can but will leave the math wizardry to the professionals.
I would like to pursue the following thought experiment by starting with this question:
Does an "extreme event" produce or remove CO2 from the atmosphere? If so, how much CO2?
The current narrative is that increasing CO2 is the cause of extreme events. But what if the reverse is true. We have empirical evidence that a volcanic eruption can "produce" CO2. So let us posit the idea (i.e. statistical probability) that an extreme event can actually contribute additional CO2 to the atmosphere. In other words, the probability that an extreme event results in additional CO2 to the atmosphere is NOT ZERO. If this one extreme event contributes additional CO2 to the atmosphere what is the probability that other extreme events also contribute additional CO2?
I'm very interested in the direction Roger's substack is heading. I'm also learning tons about climate science. Keep up the great work.
Roger,
I posed the following question to ChatGPT.
For the past 800,000 years, CO2 levels increased or decreased in response to Earth’s temperature. Is it reasonable to predict the opposite is true now that CO2 levels drive temperature?
Would you be kind enough to pose the same question to ChatGPT and then discuss its response.
Do you agree, disagree, or have a different explanation?
The first statement in the query comes word-for-word from the following website (MIT)
https://climateprimer.mit.edu/go-deeper.
The MIT website is answering the fifth question (below) in their "Go Deeper" menu:
What was the relationship between global temperature and CO2 levels prior to the Industrial Revolution?
Roger,
Good and provocative as always. I would love to see you discuss climate migration claims as part of this. Just listened to this podcast, which made me think these claims need you.
https://overcast.fm/+TYjS1cJZU.
I've not read all the comments, but so far, all the discussion of event frequency- and hence frequentist statistics- has taken been confined to a probabilistic distribution of events from a population distributed around a mean - a Gaussian bell curve (vis Rapp & Smopcakes). Gaussian analysis assumes all events are independent. Calculation of chance is not affected by short term change, which raises a high bar to disprove the null hypothesis, which is that the long term mean is not shifting. (Of course, there is also bias in the long term mean based on evolving technology and the short historical record.)
Climate is a complex system infested with cycles and positive and negative feedbacks. Unlike Blackjack, climate events are not independent if they emerge from a system with asymmetric feedbacks. Should positive feedback play a major role, outcomes will deviate away from the Gaussian mean and generate a skewed distribution in the direction of change. As Roger P demonstrates, Gaussian statistics detects this slowly, because each outcome is random.
I suggest that Bayesian probability can provide a useful perspective when interpreting extreme events. Bayesian statistics develops confidence based on comparing "prior probability" with new evidence. In its simplest form, it eliminates false positives by re-testing, like repeating an error-prone test after testing positive for cancer or Covid. In this context , we ask, given that we found a shorter interval between tornadoes or intense storms earlier in hurricane season, whether the interval is shorter, or intensity of the next storm is higher. That builds confidence in the Bayesian model, and also be revised with each event. The current hurricane season is a natural candidate to try this method out!
A great post. I love the statistical explanation! Thanks.
Roger: It does not matter what you post, or for that matter what anyone posts on any climate-related blog, because there will always be a fraction of re-posts from the public that stray totally from your topic, and make bold assertions that (as one poster below says) "I have developed absolute proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming". There is a population out there of people who believe this fairy tale, and they are anxious to promulgate their beliefs. There are blogs where people of this persuasion agree with one another repeatedly on this point, such as "climate etc". You've made it clear many times that you think rising CO2 does affect climate, particularly global warming. The question of whether and how much CO2 affects extreme events is difficult to unravel, as you have explained, because of the infrequency of events, and the many changes aside from climate that occurred that affect comparisons of the present to the past, and you have done a great job disentangling these factors to arrive at sensible statistical conclusions. But in this particular post it seems to me that one of your arguments is merely semantic. Yes indeed, climate change does not produce extreme events. But the real question is whether and how much whatever produces climate change also produces extreme events as an integral part of "climate change".
Donald Rapp:
The "fairy tale" is the belief that CO2 actually has a climatic effect.
Your inability to understand my proof does not speak well of your intelligence!
The control knob for our climate is simply changing levels of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere. Increase them, as after a VEI4 volcanic eruption, and it cools down. Decrease them, as the result of "Clean Air" efforts, and it warms up.
Apart from seasonal and diurnal variations, there is not a single change in Earth's temperatures that cannot be explained by changing SO2 aerosol levels, including El Ninos, La Ninas, and Ice Ages.
Hi All
You are welcome to discuss CO2 and climate but I’d ask that you do so at the relevant post:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-carbon-dioxide-emissions-change
Thanks!
Thanks Don ... In this series we will get to these issues. If we are to discuss "climate change" as a scientific topic (rather than a social or political artifact) then we need a precise definition, and the IPCC is quite clear on this. Stay tuned much more to come!
Roger: Update: Facebook restored my post, saying it was a "technology error." Yeah, right! Something is seriously wrong here. This is the second time Facebook has done this to me and they've threatened to cut me off if I keep sharing these posts. I know you complained earlier. did they ever get back to you w an explanation?
Roger, great piece. I again tried to share this on Facebook and it was promptly REMOVED, w the statement that it went against "community standards." Are they doing this to all posts from The Honest Broker? Looks like it! I've always thought you've bent over backwards to give the Michael Mann/RCP 8.5 Crowd the benefit of the doubt. But I would not be the least bit surprised if it was those guys or "Mean Girl" Paul Krugman pressuring Facebook to block you.
"Roger, great piece. I again tried to share this on Facebook and it was promptly REMOVED, w the statement that it went against "community standards." Are they doing this to all posts from The Honest Broker? Looks like it!"
Try removing the picture, and only including the hyperlink. I think you'll find that if you only include the hyperlink (without the picture), the hyperlink won't be blocked.
I am going to be a "wet blanket", but I have developed absolute proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming, and this needs to be recognized so that the actual cause of our warming climate can be addressed.
Circa 1980, two things were happening:
CO2 emissions, as measured at the Mauna Loa observatory were rising, primarily due to human activity, and it was hypothesized that, as in a greenhouse, it would cause temperatures to rise because of its alleged heat-trapping properties in our atmosphere.
In the run-up to 1980, large amounts of industrial Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) aerosol emissions (micron-sized droplets of Sulfuric Acid, H2SO4), were also accumulating the troposphere, which, when combined with moisture, form Acid Rain, which can kill vegetation and fish in small bodies of water, as well as cause health concerns.
As a result, "Clean Air" efforts to reduce the amount of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere were introduced in the 1970's, and, after peaking at 139 million tons in 1980, they gradually fell to 73 million tons by 2022 As the air became less polluted, the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth's surface increased, and warming naturally occurred.
This inevitable warming due to the less polluted air is totally ignored by modelers and climate researchers alike, and it is so large that it easily accounts for ALL of our modern warming!
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0884.pdf
In 2020, low-sulfur fuels were mandated for maritime shipping, and the resultant decrease in atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels may be the cause of the heat waves and droughts now occurring around the world.
I'm grateful for your reasoning and your careful elucidation. Your argument makes sense to me, especially in terms of characteristics such as mean and variation. But what about time trends? Suppose data show a steady trend upward over time. Couldn't that be a cause of the next observation being higher?
This is going to be a good series. The loaded deck example reminds me of counting cards at the blackjack table (which works well until you are escorted out of the casino). I look forward to hearing that longer discussion why humans are defined outside the climate system. Ditto external forcing from the sun and volcanoes.
Can you take on these “news” stories by responding with your data based articles on these? B is widely read - they just repeat ill formed talking points. Why ‘Rapid Intensification’ Is Transforming Hurricane Season https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-01/why-beryl-s-rapid-intensification-is-a-bad-sign-for-hurricane-season
But…isn’t this just semantics? Seems like a lot of math just to demonstrate that “climate change” is not the best choice of words. Somebody correct me if I am wrong please.
But, but, but…. CO2 is the control knob, says his holiness, Michael Mann.
Clear and understandable examples, and I really appreciate this post. But, as you say, those already committed to belief contrary to this will be difficult to convince.
"Neither climate nor climate change cause, fuel, or influence weather."
I love where this is going.
While math was necessary in my chosen field of engineering, statistics was not my strong "suit". I will struggle along to absorb as much as I can but will leave the math wizardry to the professionals.
I would like to pursue the following thought experiment by starting with this question:
Does an "extreme event" produce or remove CO2 from the atmosphere? If so, how much CO2?
The current narrative is that increasing CO2 is the cause of extreme events. But what if the reverse is true. We have empirical evidence that a volcanic eruption can "produce" CO2. So let us posit the idea (i.e. statistical probability) that an extreme event can actually contribute additional CO2 to the atmosphere. In other words, the probability that an extreme event results in additional CO2 to the atmosphere is NOT ZERO. If this one extreme event contributes additional CO2 to the atmosphere what is the probability that other extreme events also contribute additional CO2?
I'm very interested in the direction Roger's substack is heading. I'm also learning tons about climate science. Keep up the great work.
Thank you, Roger. Can’t wait for the next entry!