Remember me
▼ Content

What has changed


What has changed06-03-2016 16:48
spot
★★★★☆
(1087)
I have decided to repost here an excellent post on the open mind blog,

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/global-warming-basics-whats-has-changed/#more-8247


Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?

I started the "Global Warming Basics" posts specifically to help people who are interested in what's going on, wondering whether we should do something about it and what, but want to keep things simple. My purpose isn't to turn you into a scientist — it's just to give you enough information to make sense out of what you hear about the subject. Alas, that can be all too difficult, because so many people, and politicians, are willing to distort the truth.

Perhaps the most basic question for a lot of people is "What has changed?" Has climate changed already? In what way? What have we seen in the last few decades that concerns us? What did we see last year? Last month? What's been going on, really?


The most obvious answer to the question "What's Up?" is: temperature. Here's the global average temperature each month from January 1880 through January 2016, according to data from NASA:




thoughts?
Edited on 06-03-2016 16:50
06-03-2016 19:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Some anonymous warmizombie dupe preached on Tamino Wordpress: My purpose isn't to turn you into a scientist

That goes without saying. What is clearly not desired are more scientists and fewer gullible suckers. This is probably why there is no science in the sermon.

Some anonymous warmizombie dupe preached on Tamino Wordpress: — it's just to give you enough information to make sense out of what you hear about the subject.

Better wording: I will tell you the conclusions you are to believe, and don't ask any questions.

Some anonymous warmizombie dupe preached on Tamino Wordpress: Alas, that can be all too difficult, because so many people, and politicians, are willing to distort the truth.

...meaning some will tell you to ask questions, to doubt any conclusions you are handed, to pay attention to those "fails common sense" sirens your mind is blaring and to research the actual science, not warmizombie blogs begging you to come visit their church.

Some anonymous warmizombie dupe preached on Tamino Wordpress: The most obvious answer to the question "What's Up?" is: temperature.

This is pure religious dogma. Humanity still cannot accurately measure earth's global average temperature (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) for any useful purpose so the only reason for claiming to somehow know what average global temperatures are is to inculcate the idea that the faith, albeit WACKY, endows divine knowledge upon true believers.

Just check out the provided stupid chart crafted for the gullible.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-03-2016 21:41
spot
★★★★☆
(1087)
Measuring things is not science now?
06-03-2016 22:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
spot wrote:
Measuring things is not science now?

Correct. Measuring things is not science. It is observation.

That, however, makes no difference in this case, since you never measured anything. Neither did NASA. No one, not even the Holy NASA, has the instrumentation necessary to measure the temperature of the globe.


The Parrot Killer
07-03-2016 03:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
spot wrote:Measuring things is not science now?

Let me ask you, what were you gullibly led to believe has been measured?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-03-2016 12:04
spot
★★★★☆
(1087)
I can't see why I should bother getting into a disscussion with you two, you havent read what was linked. Anyway you seem to keep yourself amused pretending to be Waldorf and Statler's dumb cousins so I'll leave you to it.
07-03-2016 13:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
spot wrote: I can't see why I should bother getting into a disscussion with you two, you havent read what was linked.

You conveniently assume that any critique of your church literature is a result of not having read your church literature.

I read it. It's crap. You never had any intention of discussing anything. You were entirely in "preach religion" mode.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-03-2016 16:52
Gogsy
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
I was looking at this and there are so many graphs showing differing trends it's not possible to say who is guessing most accurately. I decided to look at the longest records of temperature in central England and it shows a very different picture, although it isn't complete to current day but clearly shows that "adjustments" made by the met office cool the past and warm the current.
Here's the rather old publication.
http://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/qj74manley.pdf
I think I'll believe recorded temperatures than adjusted ones but I've no idea how claims of average global temperature can be anything other than postulation as there is no comprehensive global network of stations to allow such a claim.
07-03-2016 17:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Gogsy wrote:
I think I'll believe recorded temperatures than adjusted ones but I've no idea how claims of average global temperature can be anything other than postulation as there is no comprehensive global network of stations to allow such a claim.

Correct! ...and if by "postulating" you mean "guessing wildly" then you hit the nail on the head.

Well done. Global Warming does not bestow divine knowledge,...not even knowledge of the average global temperature (whatever that is supposed mean). Religions are always claiming to have divine revelations from the heavens or mystical visions of prophetry.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-03-2016 19:27
spot
★★★★☆
(1087)
Gogsy wrote:
I was looking at this and there are so many graphs showing differing trends it's not possible to say who is guessing most accurately. I decided to look at the longest records of temperature in central England and it shows a very different picture, although it isn't complete to current day but clearly shows that "adjustments" made by the met office cool the past and warm the current.
Here's the rather old publication.
http://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/qj74manley.pdf
I think I'll believe recorded temperatures than adjusted ones but I've no idea how claims of average global temperature can be anything other than postulation as there is no comprehensive global network of stations to allow such a claim.


Why did you chose something published in 1974 to make your point? This is the met office central England temperature record;


And assuming that that graph does not represent anything in the real world and the met office are fooling us for "reason"; can you explain why sea levels are rising if temperatures are not?

Thanks.

P.S. I'm addressing you Gogsy because the other two muppets can't seem to have a civil discussion.
07-03-2016 21:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
spot wrote:
Gogsy wrote:
I was looking at this and there are so many graphs showing differing trends it's not possible to say who is guessing most accurately. I decided to look at the longest records of temperature in central England and it shows a very different picture, although it isn't complete to current day but clearly shows that "adjustments" made by the met office cool the past and warm the current.
Here's the rather old publication.
http://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/qj74manley.pdf
I think I'll believe recorded temperatures than adjusted ones but I've no idea how claims of average global temperature can be anything other than postulation as there is no comprehensive global network of stations to allow such a claim.


Why did you chose something published in 1974 to make your point? This is the met office central England temperature record;


And assuming that that graph does not represent anything in the real world and the met office are fooling us for "reason"; can you explain why sea levels are rising if temperatures are not?

Thanks.

P.S. I'm addressing you Gogsy because the other two muppets can't seem to have a civil discussion.

Do you have instrumentation to measure either England's temperature or the globe? How about sea level?

You do not want a civil discussion. You want to talk to anyone who will join your Religion.


The Parrot Killer
07-03-2016 21:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
spot wrote: can you explain why sea levels are rising if temperatures are not? Thanks.

@ spot, can you explain why you have no idea if the sea levels are rising or lowering right now?

Can you explain why you believe that faith in your religion somehow bestows upon you divine knowledge that non-believers cannot know?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-03-2016 09:43
Gogsy
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
Spot, the graph you posted makes my point here. If you look at the figures in the actual recorded temperature it does not show the "cooler" temperature in the past shown on the met office graph, which throws the whole met office data into question. The data I posted was a report before the idea of global warming and IPCC (at least in its current form) started their reports. It shows clear data manipulation. I am aware this is just a single station and nothing like global temperature but it highlights how difficult it is to understand what I thought would be a simple exercise as lots of raw data is adjusted and this can give very different outcomes.
As for the water surface rise from what I've read there seems to be a similar question as to whether this is the case or not. New satellites may improve the readings but they need calibrated and we are once again into the realms of adjustment rather than raw data. For example, some papers I've read suggest that the sea level is rising at a rate of around 1.5mm/year +-0.5mm but this has a 60 year cycle and that satellite data is reading around 60% higher but to meet the IPCC predictions I believe the rise would need to be 11mm/year with no cycling.
I am just struggling with the whole concept of how these things are measured and how people can make sweeping statements about what is happening globally based on rather questionable measurements, let alone project what will happen in the future and then quote it as if it was a fact.
Edited on 08-03-2016 10:33
08-03-2016 13:59
spot
★★★★☆
(1087)
Gogsy; I don't understand where you are coming from. You say my graph doesn't show the cold years, what do you think the blue lines on the graph are? If you remove the last 41 years from the met office graph it looks remarkably similar to the Manly reconstruction. Again I ask why did you chose to link an obscure 41 year old publication as representative. Are you saying that the trend for the last 40 years might be totally the wrong direction? The global network of stations to record sea levels are called harbours, are you saying that sea levels can't be recorded?
08-03-2016 14:28
Gogsy
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
My point was that the actual measured figures from the old report do not show the same cooling as the met office graph, it is less than half of the figure. I chose it because it was before the met office started adjusting figures just to show there are discrepancies.
The global network isn't really global at all as they are mainly positioned in USA and Europe, at least from the data I have seen. Added to that the earths plates are also moving which brings an inaccuracy to the readings but studies seem to be showing a small increase in level as I've indicated earlier. As we are talking here about a mm per year I'm not convinced this can really be measured accurately by harbour gauges.
As I've said before I thought it would be easy to establish temperate but the more I look the more I realise that raw data is at a premium and all the graphs seem to be based on interpretation giving rise to varying positions from cooling to excessive warming and I am having difficulty understanding why. I certainly have no real faith in the last couple of years being the warmest on record in the UK as it certainly hasn't been that in the last few summers in Scotland! I thought I'd start by taking the oldest record set of observed temperatures to see if I could understand that and then look at how "averages" were calculated in UK before looking at global. This sounded logical to me but I can't reconcile what was observed with the met office output.
Edited on 08-03-2016 14:33
08-03-2016 21:18
spot
★★★★☆
(1087)
Its funny that you pick a a paper from 1974 because that is about how long I have been on this earth, and we are discussing the Central England data because that is where I live I seem to remember more snow when I was a kid then now and this year was a particularly mild winter. Of course memory can be a funny thing but it seems consistent with what the scientists are saying as a matter of fact I went to Hadrian's wall in October and it was more like summer. You say that the changes in sea level are due to changes in land elevation? Is everywhere sinking then? Because although my blog only linked a few harbours tidal gauges I assure you the pattern is repeated and not just in the US and Europe.
09-03-2016 00:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
spot wrote: I seem to remember more snow when I was a kid

What about your winter 2010-11? Was there more CO2 in the atmosphere in 2010-11 than when you were a kid? Didn't 2013 have the 2nd coldest entire month of March?

Is your point to doubt your memory?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-03-2016 09:22
Gogsy
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
I found this interesting article which brings things up to date. It is interesting the difference a 5 year running mean makes to the met office 11 year running mean graph.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/25/the-rise-and-fall-of-central-england-temperature/


It highlights that changing the way data is displayed can significantly change interpretation, that is what I was trying to get my head around and this article was quite helpful to me. It also shows significant differences through the seasons so hottest year could be claimed if a winter was mild even though a summer was poor. It's the perception these sort of statements leave that is misleading most people.

In terms of winters, here in Scotland in 2009/10 then again in 2010/11 we had severely cold winters with over 4' of snow which lay here for months due to sub -10C temperatures and although recent winters have been very mild with temperatures not going below around -4C the summers have been poor too. Global temperatures may have been warmest in 2015 but not here, which is why I started to look for data rather than hype and discovered the CET data, no more, no less.
Attached image:


Edited on 09-03-2016 09:27
09-03-2016 14:32
spot
★★★★☆
(1087)
Well the graph you linked and the graph I linked are very similar, it's the way yours has the 5 year moving average returning to the base line at the end and mine does not that gives them the different impressions. Mine seems to be more recent then yours so it has last year which was overall a warm year I think that explains the discrepancy not that either one is dishonest. We are far more likely to have a record hot years in the future then record cold years.

I am more interested in what is happening in the real world to us then searching out reassuring outliers and pretending that that represents the sum of human knowledge on the subject. To do that we need to have more information then a regional temperature graph although its part of the picture. Adding 40 billion tonnes a year of CO2 to the atmosphere has an effect, physics demand it. The other graphs in my original link show some of the effects.
Edited on 09-03-2016 14:32
09-03-2016 19:08
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
spot wrote:Adding 40 billion tonnes a year of CO2 to the atmosphere has an effect, physics demand it.


That is an assumption. Aristotle assumed lighter things fall slower. He was wrong.
Edited on 09-03-2016 19:14
09-03-2016 20:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
spot wrote:Adding 40 billion tonnes a year of CO2 to the atmosphere has an effect, physics demand it.


That is an assumption. Aristotle assumed lighter things fall slower. He was wrong.


According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, the atmosphere weighs about 5.5 * 10^15 tons. According to Mauna Loa, the average increase in CO2 from all sources, both man made and natural (most of which is natural), has been about 1ppm/year.

This means 5.5 * 10^15 times 10^-6 or 5.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, not 40 billion.

For an atmosphere that weighs 5.5 quadrillion tons, this isn't even a drop in the bucket.

Now spot, shall we discuss the magick properties of carbon dioxide again? Or perhaps rather discuss the value of using the word 'tons' as a rhetorical device to make things sound bigger than they are?


The Parrot Killer
09-03-2016 22:30
Gogsy
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
Spot, like you I'm interested in the bigger picture and I started there but had to backtrack to understand why there were so many varying papers and claims. I am only now starting to understand what people are doing to temperature readings at known stations and haven't even started trying to understand how they are getting to a "global" picture on temperature. It certainly appears that the "average" people talk about is impacted more by warmer seasonal temperatures more than hotter summer temperatures so that is one message I was totally unaware of before I started looking at it in detail.
In terms of CO2 that is yet another huge question mark. I have no doubt that humans are responsible for sizeable changes but the total human generated CO2 is around 4% of the globally generated amount. I'm sure what is more important is that we have upset the balance in nature through both CO2 emissions from burning carbon fuels and population increase but maybe more so by reducing forests. On the other hand humans have cultivated crops which should help reduce that impact. However, I've yet to be convinced that CO2 in itself is responsible for temperature increases as I have not yet seen anything definitive that actually links the two, just loose associations.
I just need to take it one step at a time but I must say I'm a long way from being convinced about IPCC predictions and modelling which have been pretty poor to say the least. I think that big green money has hijacked those studying the subject by only funding studies that are aimed to show what the politicians want to see, but maybe I'm just being a bit cynical as I have studied energy requirements and use and can only look on in amazement at the way UK governments have failed to take a balanced view on energy management over the last 20 or so years!
10-03-2016 00:15
spot
★★★★☆
(1087)


Hang on your saying only 4% of the obvious increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution is due to man made sources. Thats a joke right, you don't really believe it?
10-03-2016 03:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
spot wrote:


Hang on your saying only 4% of the obvious increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution is due to man made sources. Thats a joke right, you don't really believe it?


Comes right from the government. The U.S. Dept of Energy conducted the study.
...unless you don't trust the government!


The Parrot Killer
10-03-2016 09:40
Gogsy
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
Spot, I'm not actually saying that. What I am saying is that human generated CO2 amounts to only 4% of the total generated by the planet. There is a natural cycle of CO2 where the earth balances release and absorption and this is currently out of kilter. It could be due to the human 4% but is unlikely to be all down to this. It is much more complex than measuring temperatures and you can see how difficult getting clear answers are on that simple exercise (by comparison). Of course, the earth is dynamic and with all the different aspects varying you can see just how complex trying to predict future outcomes becomes.
For IPCC to say we humans will limit temperature rises to 2C is in my opinion pure arrogance, especially as their understanding of how the earth works is a long way from reality given the poor modelling projections with observations/measurements.
I keep hearing that climate scientists are the way to understand what is happening but don't buy this as each system is so complex and specialist that in my opinion there is no such thing as a "climate" scientist, only specialists in very small parts.
I'm trying to get an overview of what's happening but guess it's going to be a long haul!
10-03-2016 13:34
spot
★★★★☆
(1087)
Slow down there. It's all very well to say that the IPCC doesn't know what its talking about but you say that humans are only responsible for 4% of carbon dioxide emissions. Every source that I find have a pre-industrial level of about 280ppm to a current level of 392ppm now my math ain't that great but that's more then 4%.
10-03-2016 15:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
spot wrote: It's all very well to say that the IPCC doesn't know what its talking about ...

We have found some common ground.

spot wrote: but you say that humans are only responsible for 4% of carbon dioxide emissions.

No. Not "emissions." 4% of the increase in atmospheric content.

spot wrote: Every source that I find have a pre-industrial level of about 280ppm to a current level of 392ppm

OK, since your math aint great, I'll do it for you, this time.

4% of a 112ppm increase = 4.48ppm CO2 increase from "human
activity" since the latter half of 19th century.

Of course since you're talking about "sources from the Internet" with numbers whose range of inflation for political purposes will vary, it must be presumed that human contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is considerably less.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-03-2016 18:06
Gogsy
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
OK, let me try to explain the 4% figure I quoted. (I did get the 4% figure from US government sources studying sustainable energy at Miami University postgrad)
The total CO2 added to the atmosphere from natural sources (oceans, land, volcanoes etc) comes to around 780Gt/annum as an estimated figure based on some measurement but largely modelled.
The total CO2 added to the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels (calculated from volumes) and land use etc(modelled) is approx 33Gt/annum giving 4.2%.
However, the ocean and land also absorb CO2 so the increase seen in the ppm figures are the difference between the addition to the atmosphere and the absorption from the atmosphere. The IPCC "assume" this increase in atmospheric CO2 is all down to man as the balance was relatively stable over the past few thousand years (by proxy measurement). Whether this is the case or not I don't actually know yet but I'd think it is reasonable to think man is responsible at least in part. What doesn't appear to me to be established is whether this is something likely to cause catastrophic warming or not.
So regarding the CO2 emissions it's not the actual numbers that change the atmospheric levels but the imbalance. I haven't done any figures as yet on whether the 4% figure could drive up the levels to those seen but it has previously been studied and it is thought at least half of this is re absorbed by oceans and land, hence some visual greening of the planet.

Hope this helps
Edited on 10-03-2016 18:11
11-03-2016 01:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Gogsy wrote: The IPCC "assume" this increase in atmospheric CO2 is all down to man as the balance was relatively stable over the past few thousand years (by proxy measurement).

WTF is this "balance" thing you're inventing? Is it anything in physics?

Gogsy wrote: What doesn't appear to me to be established is whether this is something likely to cause catastrophic warming or not.

The only catastrophe that can be caused by an imaginary thing is the destruction of an ego if the delusion bubble is sufficiently powerfully burst.

Gogsy wrote:So regarding the CO2 emissions it's not the actual numbers that change the atmospheric levels but the imbalance.

Please. The floor is yours. Explain this "imbalance" thing. For the moment I'm calling BS.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-03-2016 09:06
Gogsy
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
Sorry if my post was misleading due to my choice of words.
Using ice core samples the "apparent" CO2 over the past 800,000 years appears to fluctuate between 200 and 300 ppmv. As CO2 is both added to the atmosphere and absorbed from the atmosphere naturally this suggests that both are more or less the same and I was incorrectly calling this a balance. I wasn't intending to suggest this is where the level needs to be, just that there appears to be a trend from the past which is currently being exceeded.
Whether this increase has any impact on temperatures is another discussion, I was just looking at CO2 and trying to make it clear that human created CO2 is only 4% of the total added to the atmosphere.
11-03-2016 13:40
spot
★★★★☆
(1087)
Gogsy wrote:
OK, let me try to explain the 4% figure I quoted. (I did get the 4% figure from US government sources studying sustainable energy at Miami University postgrad)
The total CO2 added to the atmosphere from natural sources (oceans, land, volcanoes etc) comes to around 780Gt/annum as an estimated figure based on some measurement but largely modelled.
The total CO2 added to the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels (calculated from volumes) and land use etc(modelled) is approx 33Gt/annum giving 4.2%.
However, the ocean and land also absorb CO2 so the increase seen in the ppm figures are the difference between the addition to the atmosphere and the absorption from the atmosphere. The IPCC "assume" this increase in atmospheric CO2 is all down to man as the balance was relatively stable over the past few thousand years (by proxy measurement). Whether this is the case or not I don't actually know yet but I'd think it is reasonable to think man is responsible at least in part. What doesn't appear to me to be established is whether this is something likely to cause catastrophic warming or not.
So regarding the CO2 emissions it's not the actual numbers that change the atmospheric levels but the imbalance. I haven't done any figures as yet on whether the 4% figure could drive up the levels to those seen but it has previously been studied and it is thought at least half of this is re absorbed by oceans and land, hence some visual greening of the planet.

Hope this helps



I see where you are coming from now, the yearly cycle shows a lot of carbon dioxide being absorbed and exhaled by the emitted by the biomass of the planet, added to this are the emissions by fossil fuels. Not all of it gets reabsorbed some of it persists in the atmosphere and as we burn more fossil fuels the concentration just goes up year on year as shown. The way you worded it you seem to say humans are only responsible for 4% of that increase which seemed a daft statement to me.

However if you think the obvious trend shown in the graph is not due to fossil fuels I would be interested in evidence. because it goes against what was established in the 1950's and hasn't been challenged since, long before the IPCC came into being so nobody is "Assuming" anything.
Edited on 11-03-2016 13:44
11-03-2016 14:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
spot wrote:However if you think the obvious trend shown in the graph is not due to fossil fuels I would be interested in evidence.

Back at you. If you think more than 4% of the increase is due to fossil fuels, I'd like to see evidence.

spot wrote: ...because it goes against what was established in the 1950's...

Nothing has been "established."

spot wrote: ...and hasn't been challenged since, long before the IPCC came into being so nobody is "Assuming" anything.

Who are you to say that it hasn't been challenged? I presume that you, like all warmizombies, are going to once again pretend to speak for countless, unnamed others, e.g. all of humanity that has lived since the 50s, as if you have personally interviewed every single one of them, and now we're all supposed to just believe you and your WACKY religious dogma.

Science is all about doubting and questioning. Presume that your stupid dogma has been, and is being, challenged at all times. In science, nothing about the Global Warming religion has been "established" and you do not get to shift your burden of proof by merely claiming it is.

Something that is established is that human-caused sources of CO2 are completely drowned out by natural causes so the full burden of support for fossil fuels being even a measurable factor rests solely upon you. No one is forced to accept your religious beliefs as facts.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate What has changed:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact