CO2 & temperature over the last 550 million yrs

[Moonlight Graham]

I've always found this graph compelling. I'm interested in any opinions on it (its accuracy and relevance) by those in the science field. Don't know Waldo's science background, but would be interested on his take on it (hopefully minus the attitude) as he seems to follow climate science closely.

For those who don't know, the Phanerozoic eon is basically just the period spanning about the last 550 million years.

Here's the graph, which is fairly well known and i'm sure most people interested in climate science have seen it before: Phanerozoic - CO2 & Temperature

This graph is often used by AGW deniers to show that there has been little if any correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature over this long-term period, therefore questioning the CO2-temp relationship (though there seems to be a link over a much shorter time frame, re: this famous Vostok ice core graph.

If accurate, this is compelling evidence. The CO2 data seems legit enough. Was derived from a study in the American Journal of Science in 2001.

Here's another graph of multiple sources charting of the CO2 during the Phanerozoic i found on wikipedia, which shows pretty much the same thing (though this graph is flipped compared to the other graph, with years descending in the opposite direction on the horizontal axis). But is the temp data accurate? Here's another temp chart from wiki of the last 500 mil yrs, which is a bit different but generally shows the same temp pattern.

Thoughts?

[Guest TrueMetis]

All I can say is I wouldn't expect CO2 to correlate over such a long period. While CO2 is the prime factor now as most of the other factors have remained constant or have been checked there are many other things that influence climate. The strength of the sun, axial tilt, the other greenhouse gases (which are beginning to have more of an effect now), water vapour (also beginning to have more of an effect), and where the continents are as just a few examples. Anyone who thinks the lack of correlation for the past 550 million years means anything needs to go back through the basics science of climate change.

[Bonam]

I've always found this graph compelling. I'm interested in any opinions on it (its accuracy and relevance) by those in the science field. Don't know Waldo's science background, but would be interested on his take on it (hopefully minus the attitude) as he seems to follow climate science closely.

For those who don't know, the Phanerozoic eon is basically just the period spanning about the last 550 million years.

Here's the graph, which is fairly well known and i'm sure most people interested in climate science have seen it before: Phanerozoic - CO2 & Temperature

This graph is often used by AGW deniers to show that there has been little if any correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature over this long-term period, therefore questioning the CO2-temp relationship (though there seems to be a link over a much shorter time frame, re: this famous Vostok ice core graph.

If accurate, this is compelling evidence. The CO2 data seems legit enough. Was derived from a study in the American Journal of Science in 2001.

Here's another graph of multiple sources charting of the CO2 during the Phanerozoic i found on wikipedia, which shows pretty much the same thing (though this graph is flipped compared to the other graph, with years descending in the opposite direction on the horizontal axis). But is the temp data accurate? Here's another temp chart from wiki of the last 500 mil yrs, which is a bit different but generally shows the same temp pattern.

Thoughts?

When looking at data over this timespan, it should be noted that the Sun will have increased in luminosity by about 5% over the past half billion years, leading to a rise in Earth's average temperature of about 3 C independent of all other factors.

Given how that data looks, I'm also forced to assume that the error bars on the temperature throughout most of the time period were quite large.

[Moonlight Graham]

Anyone who thinks the lack of correlation for the past 550 million years means anything needs to go back through the basics science of climate change.

But it does mean something, and you said it. It means that there is little to no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature over such a time period.

[jbg]

I have always viewed the promotion of CO₂ as the cause of global warming to be fraudulent.

[Moonlight Graham]

I have always viewed the promotion of CO₂ as the cause of global warming to be fraudulent.

Based on feverish scientific review? Or otherwise?

[LonJowett]

Based on feverish scientific review? Or otherwise?

Based on half-baked conspiracy theories and a belief in whatever Foxnews tells him.

[bloodyminded]

I have always viewed the promotion of CO₂ as the cause of global warming to be fraudulent.

Always?

And actually, the consensus isn't simply that CO2 is "the" cause of global warming. It's that it's a crucial contributing factor.

The scientists with whom you presumably agree also claim that it's a contributing factor. The debate is over degree, not the fact itself. So you stand nearly alone, among a tiny fringe minority.

[jbg]

Based on half-baked conspiracy theories and a belief in whatever Foxnews tells him.

I don't watch or listen to FoxNews. I've been alive long enough to see weather cycles.

[waldo]

This graph is often used by AGW deniers to show that there has been little if any correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature over this long-term period, therefore questioning the CO2-temp relationship

Thoughts?

first, with attitude… a few broad-based generalizations: (1) the same deniers fallaciously trumpeting up their merged Phanerozoic temp/CO2 graph… relying on proxies over 400+ million years… are (some of) the same deniers that decry the use of proxies over the recent 2000 years – go figure – hey? Apparently, the use of proxies is only warranted/justified, when it suits a purposeful denier agenda; (2) that denier merged Phanerozoic temperature/CO2 graph presumes to present a correlation, (or presumed lack thereof), in the absence of all other influencing natural climate drivers. However, when all climate drivers are factored… when other natural climate drivers are taken into account, the paleo-climate record does, in fact, provide evidence of the dual forcing/feedback of CO2 influencing global temperatures; more specifically, showing that levels of CO2 are consistent with the expected radiative forcing necessary to match past temperature reconstructions.

and in that same theme, I earlier posted a relative ‘modern-day’ reflection on temperature/CO2 correlation… a correlation that most certainly is not done in the absence of other influencing climate drivers. It is only when the radiative forcing of CO2 is added to the mix of natural climate driver influences, that the relatively recent significant warming can be explained. That earlier post showing ‘modern-day’ temperature/CO2 correlation:

Well, they sure appear to be correlated to increases in co2 so that would be kind of an unusual coincidence don't you think ?

How so? Take a look at the complete record and you'll see that every decade from 1880 right up to 1980 show little or no warming - maybe even a tiny bit of cooling (look at all the blue and white). At the same time, CO2 went from 280PPM to 340 or 350PPM - why didn't the temperature start to rise until 1980 if there is such a strong correlation with CO2? Some people say that the older records have been adjusted and homogenized to make it look cooler so that recent temperatures appear warmer.....but just look at the graphs and explain that "anomole" if you can.

Link to all decades:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php?all=y

I suspect those are cumulative changes. I have posted the temperature graph already - here it is again:

Wiki page

They are not cumulative. They are decade by decade comparisons to the 30 year period 1951-1980 and thus show whether each decade was warmer or colder than that period. Your link to a temperature graph is NASA related but is in Wiki - it's a fairly simple graph - one no doubt used by IPCC. This thread was started by showing very detailed Global coverages by decade and I've just asked if by looking at the pictures for all the decades up to 1980 - whether you can see any significant warming. Even NASA claims that two thirds of the "warming has happened since 1975. If that's so, why? CO2 rose more from 1880 to 1975 than it did from 1975 to current.

notwithstanding Simple's keen eyeball prowess in presuming to interpret a historical CO2-temperature correlation from a series of image map presentations on temperatures alone...

- historical trends in CO2 concentrations and temperature, on a geological and recent time scale (Vostok, Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores, SIO, CRUTEM3v) -

here

:

- CO2 concentration and temperature trend overlay ((Annual atmospheric carbon dioxide (

NOAA

) and annual global temperature anomaly (

GISS

)) from 1964 to 2008) -

here

:

more particular to the details of your post: this graphic link presents a more representative accounting of that denier merged Phanerozoic temperature/CO2 graph; one actually showing the error bars/uncertainty (as shaded), that Bonam highlighted.

the 2 data sources of that denier merged Phanerozoic temperature/CO2 graph are legitimate; specifically: (1) GEOCARB III: A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME (Berner & Kothavala, 2001), and (2) the Paleomap Project. Of course, the illegitimacy of that graphic appears in the presentation and interpretation as spun by deniers. It is certainly a point of denier selectivity when they actually choose not to include the pertinent conclusion from that first source, the Berner & Kothavala paper:

Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification.

Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleo-temperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect

.

one of your wiki graphic links – here – presented that same Berner & Kothavala 2001 Geocarb III modeling result… amongst a grouping of other like model initiatives that show CO2 levels across the Phanerozoic timeline. That wiki graphic extends to also include a compilation of proxy measurements(Royer et al, 2004). Royer extended upon that CO2 timeline emphasis resulting in the 2006 publication of, “CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic”, a paper that presents a definitive correlation between CO2 and temperature… that CO2, operating in combination with other radiative forcing factors (like the decreased luminosity that Bonam highlighted), imparted a strong control over Phanerozoic global temperatures:

Abstract

The correspondence between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and globally averaged surface temperatures in the recent past suggests that this coupling may be of great antiquity. Here, I compare 490 published proxy records of CO2 spanning the Ordovician to Neogene with records of global cool events to evaluate the strength of CO2-temperature coupling over the Phanerozoic (last 542 my). For periods with sufficient CO2 coverage, all cool events are associated with CO2 levels below 1000 ppm. A CO2 threshold of below 500 ppm is suggested for the initiation of widespread, continental glaciations, although this threshold was likely higher during the Paleozoic due to a lower solar luminosity at that time. Also, based on data from the Jurassic and Cretaceous, a CO2 threshold of below 1000 ppm is proposed for the initiation of cool non-glacial conditions.

A pervasive, tight correlation between CO2 and temperature is found both at coarse (10 my timescales) and fine resolutions up to the temporal limits of the data set (million-year timescales), indicating that CO2, operating in combination with many other factors such as solar luminosity and paleogeography, has imparted strong control over global temperatures for much of the Phanerozoic.

again… the emphasis being, whether ‘modern-day’ climate or paleo-climate, full inclusion of all climate drivers is required to properly assess climate impact/results… that, again, when all climate drivers are factored… when other natural climate drivers are taken into account, the paleo-climate record does, in fact, provide evidence of the dual forcing/feedback of CO2 influencing global temperatures; more specifically, showing that levels of CO2 are consistent with the expected radiative forcing necessary to match past temperature reconstructions.

[waldo]

I have always viewed the promotion of CO₂ as the cause of global warming to be fraudulent.

Based on feverish scientific review? Or otherwise?

Based on half-baked conspiracy theories and a belief in whatever Foxnews tells him.

I don't watch or listen to FoxNews. I've been alive long enough to see weather cycles.

jbg, fraudulent? Well... now, in keeping with your self-proclaimed legal-beagle status, I will not directly call you a shyster... I will simply offer a U.S. focused legal definition of fraud... along with the 5 elements required to prove said fraud, and allow you an opportunity to show us your lawyerly best - hey?

fraud definition: A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

I also note you appear to have backed off on the lacking substantiation to your oft stated MLW 30-year cyclical climatic event meme... you now appear quite willing to simply go with your own personal anecdote... suggesting, now, that you've, "lived long enough to see the weather cycles". Seeing is believing, hey jbg? In any case, please note, I won't abandon the ready bookmark to the following post - the one still waiting on your self-described, "lack of time management", to adequately address!

yes... yes you do... ceaselessly point out your mindless obsession that presumes to attribute global cooling and global warming to a natural 30 year cyclical climatic event... yes you do! Repeatedly - through many climate change related threads.

When last challenged on your nonsense, you suggested your research and advisement would be forthcoming... how's that coming along?

if the PDO is what you're holding up as "proof"... let's be clear... are you suggesting that the PDO, by definition an oscillating temperature pattern, is responsible for the accepted long-term warming trend... you do accept the long-term warming trend, right? Notwithstanding the PDOs oscillating pattern, one would expect you should be able to show a PDO warming trend coincident with long-term temperature trending, right? You should be able to show that, right?

Not sure what point you want to make here.

the point was... you were offering up the PDO as the causal link to global warming... to the global warming impacts mentioned... you were speaking of 30 year cyclical reversals as the causal link for the highlight points Hazeleyes mentioned... glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice-free Northwest Passage. The point was... if you're going to offer up the PDO as the causal link to global warming/impacts, you better be able to step up and substantiate that by providing a like association, a like long-term trend, between the PDO index and global temperature anomolies. Otherwise... all you've proposed is that a, by definition, oscillating temperature pattern (the PDO), a pattern that does not hold within it a long-term warming trend, is the "proof you spoke of" for global warming/impacts. Show the

long-term trend correlation

... you can show that correlation between the PDO index and global temperature anomolies - right?

equally, there's just something about it's name... that there 'Pacific' reference... as a climate phenomena found primarily in the North Pacific. Perhaps you could extend upon just how that 'locality' translates into a global affect, one particularly targeted towards your initial post on this subject (i.e. the references to glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice=free NW Passage, etc.).

The Pacific Ocean is the world's largest ocean. Also, being West of the North American land masses, it has a direct impact on much of the Americas' weather, and an indirect impact through teleconnections over a much broader area.

Next.

next?

you're quite funny... you're wanting to take a localized phenomenon, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a phenomenon centered principally in the North Pacific, and suggest it's significant enough to bring forward global temperature impacts... that it's the cause for global warming, that it will result in, as you stated, 30 year cyclical reversals of global warming impacts; specifically those mentioned by Hazeleyes (i.e. glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice-free Northwest Passage). Teleconnections??? Oh, please... let us have some of that D'Aleo wisdom you so freely dispense - we can have some real fun then, hey?

Will research and advise but my recollection is that the PDO and global temperatures move in lockstep.

[WIP]

I've always found this graph compelling. I'm interested in any opinions on it (its accuracy and relevance) by those in the science field. Don't know Waldo's science background, but would be interested on his take on it (hopefully minus the attitude) as he seems to follow climate science closely.

For those who don't know, the Phanerozoic eon is basically just the period spanning about the last 550 million years.

Here's the graph, which is fairly well known and i'm sure most people interested in climate science have seen it before: Phanerozoic - CO2 & Temperature

This graph is often used by AGW deniers to show that there has been little if any correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature over this long-term period, therefore questioning the CO2-temp relationship (though there seems to be a link over a much shorter time frame, re: this famous Vostok ice core graph.

If accurate, this is compelling evidence. The CO2 data seems legit enough. Was derived from a study in the American Journal of Science in 2001.

Here's another graph of multiple sources charting of the CO2 during the Phanerozoic i found on wikipedia, which shows pretty much the same thing (though this graph is flipped compared to the other graph, with years descending in the opposite direction on the horizontal axis). But is the temp data accurate? Here's another temp chart from wiki of the last 500 mil yrs, which is a bit different but generally shows the same temp pattern.

Thoughts?

That first graph looked awfully familiar -- likely because I'm sure it's the same one that a certain one-note charlie denier used to post and repost over and over again here. What makes me see red when this sort of information is published by climate change deniers is that they carefully cherrypick their information, and neglect to inform the intended reader of the strengths and weaknesses of such a chart. I only discovered this by taking the time to go to the original source, where the paleoclimate investigators themselves, discuss the higher range of errors from using chemical analysis of ancient rocks to determine temperatures, oxygen and carbon dioxide levels.

Legitimate, honest researchers will show their cards upfront to a general audience. But these so-called "global warming skeptics" force the reader to find their mistakes and weaknesses. To me, it looks similar to the proofs of intelligent design and irreducible complexity; where evolution skeptics at the Discovery Institute play the same game of deliberately trying to misinform the public by leading their audience on to jump to the desired conclusions.

My first objection to this notion that: 'if temps and CO2 levels were higher during the Phanerozoic, then everything's fine now' argument, is that this was half a billion years ago! We weren't living then, and neither were any of the plants and animals that make up our present ecosystem; so why would consider that we can just take comfort knowing that there were times in the past when things were worse? If we're going to just use examples from the past, why not use the Permian-Triassic Extinction period....... Which was also a time of rapidly rising CO2 levels, growing ocean acidification, and warming temperatures? Likely because there was that unpleasant mass extinction problem....which we are heading for again through neglect and ignorance.

There is also that problem of accuracy in chemical analysis. A study published in Science last year, which used an improved form of chemical analysis, that more closely matches data gathered from other sources: Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report You don't half to go back even 15 million years to ask whether we are creating a climate that will destroy civilization or worse! Our modern way of life....especially the kind of agriculture that we have become dependent on to feed 7 billion people, is based on hybrid plants that are less able to adapt to climate extremes than natural varieties....hence the collapse of the wheat harvests in Russia last year. Expect more of the same in future, due to an increasingly volatile climate, overuse of groundwater, and increased meat consumption in former third world nations: http://trendsupdates.com/collapse-of-world-food-blame-industrial-agriculture/

[dre]

I don't watch or listen to FoxNews. I've been alive long enough to see weather cycles.

[Michael Hardner]

That reminds me of something I read about the US debate over the gold vs silver standard in the 19th century. When asked his opinion on the topic, a politician said "Well my daddy always used a silver dollar and that's all that there is to it for me.".

I guess you could call it "argument by glorified stubbornness".

[dre]

That reminds me of something I read about the US debate over the gold vs silver standard in the 19th century. When asked his opinion on the topic, a politician said "Well my daddy always used a silver dollar and that's all that there is to it for me.".

I guess you could call it "argument by glorified stubbornness".

Yeah... when I read stuff like that it just makes me lose hope. JBQ isnt stupid I dont think... so you gotta wonder how many millions of other people have allowed that kind of fallacy to highjack their thought process.

I noticed the same kind of thing in the AA thread! "Whaddaya mean we need AA! My Uncle Pete was a quadrapalegic, black, jewish, bisexual transvestite, and he got a degreee and made millions!".

Its sad because people are supposed to learn how to avoid those kind of intellectual traps by about grade 4

How are we ever supposed to get anywhere?

[Michael Hardner]

How are we ever supposed to get anywhere?

You have to look at yourself first. Even the smartest among us falls into 'intellectual traps'. I think I read in 'A Brief History of Time' how a physics student at Oxbridge noted that the professor hadn't taken the lid of a paint can into account when working on a problem and the professor exclaiming that they had been using that example for years without anyone pointing out the error.

Build the system to withstand mistakes and human infallibility (such as democracy does) and it will work well.

[dre]

You have to look at yourself first. Even the smartest among us falls into 'intellectual traps'. I think I read in 'A Brief History of Time' how a physics student at Oxbridge noted that the professor hadn't taken the lid of a paint can into account when working on a problem and the professor exclaiming that they had been using that example for years without anyone pointing out the error.

Build the system to withstand mistakes and human infallibility (such as democracy does) and it will work well.

Im not talking about mistakes or paintcan lids here, or even misconceptions. Im talking about the fundamental ability employ cognitive reasoning. When people appeal to personal experience that way, theyre declaring that they have either no capacity or interest to be part of any discussions or solutions. And its no small ammount of people.

[Wild Bill]

Im not talking about mistakes or paintcan lids here, or even misconceptions. Im talking about the fundamental ability employ cognitive reasoning. When people appeal to personal experience that way, theyre declaring that they have either no capacity or interest to be part of any discussions or solutions. And its no small ammount of people.

Of course, Dr. Dre! It's most people because it's human nature to resist admitting they might have been wrong!

This inability is perhaps the greatest obstacle to learning. Essentially, it means that with most people once they've formed an idea it had better be right, 'cuz there's no way they're willing to change it!

How often right here on MLW have you seen someone admit they were wrong? Even when argued into a corner most folks just won't admit their premise just doesn't stand up. Agreed, most things we discuss here are more about opinions than facts, so that many premises are thus impossible to disprove. Still, with the sheer number of them you would expect some capitulation once in a while.

I don't know exactly why we humans are this way. It may be that we think an admission of wrong means somehow we are stupid or flawed. To a true scientist or an engineer that idea is flat out crazy! You have to make all the errors before you eventually stumble onto what works!

I don't claim to be any better than anyone else but some members might remember that I have admitted wrong or apologized on several occasions. I don't remember seeing anyone else do it. Someone may have but it's obviously not very common.

Which only proves your premise!

[Bonam]

Of course, Dr. Dre! It's most people because it's human nature to resist admitting they might have been wrong!

This inability is perhaps the greatest obstacle to learning. Essentially, it means that with most people once they've formed an idea it had better be right, 'cuz there's no way they're willing to change it!

How often right here on MLW have you seen someone admit they were wrong? Even when argued into a corner most folks just won't admit their premise just doesn't stand up. Agreed, most things we discuss here are more about opinions than facts, so that many premises are thus impossible to disprove. Still, with the sheer number of them you would expect some capitulation once in a while.

I don't know exactly why we humans are this way. It may be that we think an admission of wrong means somehow we are stupid or flawed. To a true scientist or an engineer that idea is flat out crazy! You have to make all the errors before you eventually stumble onto what works!

I don't claim to be any better than anyone else but some members might remember that I have admitted wrong or apologized on several occasions. I don't remember seeing anyone else do it. Someone may have but it's obviously not very common.

Which only proves your premise!

I think that problem is far exaggerated in anonymous discussions on internet forums. Talk to someone in person and you see a lot more give and take in a discussion. Most of the time when I converse with other engineers or scientists about technical issues we frequently change each others opinions.

Anyway, appealing to personal experience as dre mentions is hardly the only or the biggest problem with seeing things objectively. Just take a look at this list of cognitive biases that affect people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

I especially like the bias blind spot which seems to particularly affect certain people on these boards, who believe their arguments are perfect and objective and everyone else is just stupid and biased and fallacious.

[waldo]

I think that problem is far exaggerated in anonymous discussions on internet forums. Talk to someone in person and you see a lot more give and take in a discussion. Most of the time when I converse with other engineers or scientists about technical issues we frequently change each others opinions.

Anyway, appealing to personal experience as dre mentions is hardly the only or the biggest problem with seeing things objectively. Just take a look at this list of cognitive biases that affect people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

I especially like the bias blind spot which seems to particularly affect certain people on these boards, who believe their arguments are perfect and objective and everyone else is just stupid and biased and fallacious.

you should check out the Dunning-Kruger effect... from the same authors, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"

Abstract:

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the meta-cognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analysis linked this miscalibration to deficits in meta-cognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their meta-cognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.

(on edit: replaced 'expired access key' link reference)

Edited January 6, 2011 by waldo

[Bonam]

you should check out the Dunning-Kruger effect...

Yup I've heard of that one. Interesting that that effect seems to be culture-dependent, with its inverse being exhibited in some Asian cultures. I'm also curious what a test of humor is

[waldo]

Yup I've heard of that one. Interesting that that effect seems to be culture-dependent, with its inverse being exhibited in some Asian cultures. I'm also curious what a test of humor is

the humour test appears within the aforementioned linked study reference (Study 1 inclusive of described method, results & discussion, and summary)... I've edited the post to replace an expired link (I hadn't noticed there was an expiry built into the access key within the address link).

the cultural aspect is most illuminating - this study speaks to the distinction between (East) Asians and Westerners (Americans)... results showing that, at least sometimes and under some conditions, Americans have a tendency to inflate their worth, with the mirror opposite showing within East Asians, where self-assessments showed that East Asians tended to underestimate their abilities, with an aim toward improving the self and getting along with others.

[pfezziwig]

Do we really need scientific consensus and public consensus on temperature patterns to come to the conclusion the pollution is a bad thing?

For arguements sake let's say the weather patterns are natural. Do you still want to pump the air full of pollution or operate a business that is wastefull (ie. inefficient)?

'Environmentally friendly' business practices in Europe were not driven by the fear of elevated temperatures but innovators trying to work more efficiently and cost effectively. In north america we look at it as an extra cost piled on businesses, no wonder we are among the most unproductive workers in the western world.

[Bonam]

Do we really need scientific consensus and public consensus on temperature patterns to come to the conclusion the pollution is a bad thing?

For arguements sake let's say the weather patterns are natural. Do you still want to pump the air full of pollution or operate a business that is wastefull (ie. inefficient)?

'Environmentally friendly' business practices in Europe were not driven by the fear of elevated temperatures but innovators trying to work more efficiently and cost effectively. In north america we look at it as an extra cost piled on businesses, no wonder we are among the most unproductive workers in the western world.

The problem is that traditionally, CO2 was not really considered a "pollutant". Rather, CO2 is the intended product of most energy generating chemical reactions. It is not a undesirable contaminant resulting from a chemical reaction, such as CO. An ideal chemical reaction burning a simple hydrocarbon:

CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H20

You burn the hydrocarbon with the oxygen and get water and CO2. That's the ideal. Real reactions also produce small quantities of every possible permutation of the reactants, so you'll also get CO (carbon monoxide), H202 (hydrogen peroxide), O3, etc, those are the pollution. Traditionally, making these reactions "more efficient" and "reducing pollution" has meant going closer and closer to the ideal reaction and reducing the amount of pollutants produced, meaning more of the products actually end up as CO2 rather than something else.

So reducing pollutants like CO means just making your combustion process more ideal. But, you can't reduce how much CO2 you produce by doing that, because it is the main product of the reaction. The only way to not produce the CO2 is just to not use the reaction in the first place, and that is a whole different proposition than just trying to optimize the reaction.

[Pliny]

Im not talking about mistakes or paintcan lids here, or even misconceptions. Im talking about the fundamental ability employ cognitive reasoning. When people appeal to personal experience that way, theyre declaring that they have either no capacity or interest to be part of any discussions or solutions. And its no small ammount of people.

You should look up "cognitive".

There are two ways to learn things. Education and experience. You are basically saying that experience is not a valid means of learning. In other words, one's senses and perceptions should be overridden by education. Unfortunately, that leads to very few people who must experience to educate the rest of us and with only those few people able to rely upon their perceptions and their experience it is easy to "educate" the rest of the population, a system that is rather authoritarian and open to abuse to say the least.