undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdmbche2y ago0 comments

(not a climate scientist) Also, for the graph showing "peaks" - it seems to me that the "pattern of peaks" is constant through your graph, but the average temperature rises continually through the peaks.

If I were to guess, the peaks are things like volcanoes, currents and such, which are "constant" through time. The rise in CO2 is shown in the graph by the median not being a flat line.

0 comments

revelio2y ago

If you have a step function and draw a trend line through it, the trend line will go up, but that doesn't imply a continuous process. CO2 forcing is (asserted to be) a continuous process. More co2 = higher temperature. The attempts to explain why that's observably not the case have become particularly wild in recent years, yet we are constantly told the science is settled and other untrue things.

adammarples2y ago

Co2 is far from the only thing affecting temperature. The graph you're posting is clearly not a step function either. More like some kind of oscillation with an additional linear trend. Maybe the oscillation is el nino, it seems to be roughly periodic to 7 years or so, I don't know.

Edit: the bigger peaks are bang on el nino years, especially the '98 peak

revelio2y ago

Yep the step function is El Nino. There is also La Nina which can cool things, the AMO and other natural inputs that affect temperature. So it turns into a debate about how much each factors matters, which is the big set of unknowns that have no clear answer. Hence why the science isn't settled.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsdmbche2y ago0 comments

If I were to guess, the peaks are things like volcanoes, currents and such, which are "constant" through time. The rise in CO2 is shown in the graph by the median not being a flat line.

0 comments

revelio2y ago

adammarples2y ago

Edit: the bigger peaks are bang on el nino years, especially the '98 peak

revelio2y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse