Global Warming explained - "inconvenient" or otherwise!

[KLB]

GW and the advocates request is to turn back the clock, stop being productive, drive one vehicle, take out competition, produce what i say is good, don't smoke, don't create, don't do this and that because, I DON'T LIKE IT.

I think this is an unfair statement, because I personally know very few people who accept global warming as a real human caused issue taking this stance. Yest there are fringe groups that want us to "turn back the clock" but this is not the mainstream belief.

 

base your argument on dependency, creating efficiency, more wealth for the people of the planet and allowing progress then I'll lead the way. but, don't base it on some non-existed need to be in a party, a tree hugger or some ideology which promotes doing away, all my ancestors gave me or what i intend to leave mine.

I look at it as a matter that we need to become more efficient and consume less resources so that we have something to leave our descendants. We do not need to step backwards to resolve these issues, rather we need to move forward. If I could cut my energy costs by half by having a more efficient home and more efficient vehicle, I'd have a lot more to leave behind to my children because not as much of my money would have been spent on energy.

 

If we as a society quickly move forward with finding real alternatives to fossil fuels we will not leave the burden of needing to make the switch to our descendants and will leave them with a cleaner environment. If we learn how to reduce our waste of resources, we can leave our descendants with more unspoiled forests and more untapped resources in the earth.

[Dak]

remember that .0023, is the total of mankind's efforts in the air at any one point

 

hmm...

 

isn't that the third time you've mentioned that stat?

 

would you care to offer a citation supporting it?

[Icemelt]

Icemelt's post #65 against CO2 and global warming reminds me of an "Intelligent Design" defense where the names of lots of scientists are brought forth to support - - - - - - - ID[/url]]

Yeah its' so easy to dismiss opposition without recognising the intellectual standing of those quoted, isn't it ?

You can just carry on with a closed mind.

No point in having a debate under those circumstances is there ?

I guess you just want to communicate with those who agree.

How boring !

 

1vedoo said I couldn’t back up my comments with evidence and challenged me to produce some names, since he disbelieves there is anyone eminently qualified who is opposed to current theories. I haven't counted them but I guess there must be over 50 listed with some pretty astonishing qualifications. I can bore you with plenty more if you wish !

 

Rather than acting so brainwashed and glibly dismissing them all, why don't you at list read what they have to say and then try to match my list with a another list of your comparably qualified supporters, but please remember the valid comments from Prof Tim Ball (Dept of Climatology University of Winnipeg) when he astutely reminded us that many IPCC researchers focus their studies on the impacts of climate change and generally don't have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change.

 

What would it take for you to see the light ?

[theCPE]

I think there are a few things that some people don't realize mainly because they have a preconceived belief which misguides their attempts of researching the topic.

 

First, anyone that sites numbers of papers written on GW as evidence it exists is well, silly. There is never a shortage of ignorance and sheep flock together.

 

The hypothesis has always been that increases in CO2 concentration directly relate to temperature increases. However, there are a couple of problems with this hypothesis. The relationship is usually assumed linear which has never been proven. Also, the effect is assumed immediate which once again has never been proven.

 

In fact most of the effort spent on GW is on conjecture; what if the temperature increases by X amount what will the planet be like then? Little effort is actually spent proving the hypothesis accurate or formulating a new hypothesis. You only have to watch Gore's silly movie to see just this phenomenon of effort applied to conjecture versus effort applied to science.

 

Just like the famine and global cooling scares of the 70's, GW is a fad.

 

The effects humanity can have on the planet is miniscule; whatever climate changes are destined to occur will occur as dictated by nature.

 

Historically, temperature and co2 ppm has fluctuated as evident from extractions from glaciers. These fluctuations occured far before man or industry existed, that isn't difficult to follow right? If ice ages have started and ended without man existing....obviously extreme warming and cooling occurs naturally. Why suddenly should we assume any changes that occur now are due to man?

 

What your GW advocates wont tell you:

 

Water vapor is the majority contributor to GW. In fact CO2 is only responsible for roughly 3% of GW. That is why kyoto protocols and other silly legislation would not only be ineffective but also dangerous to the economy...they focus on CO2.

 

Further, co2 is not just produced by man, in fact the majority of co2 produced is from nature (around 60%)

 

This is what you have.....

 

(.03)*(.4) = .012 = 1.2%

 

At best man is producing 1.2% of GW.

 

There is more though.

 

The temperature swings that have been seen historically, (2-5 degrees over several centuries) can not be entirely caused by co2 ppm alone. Meaning, other things obviously effect temperature.

 

The sun DOES have cycles.

 

It isn't prudent to have at best inconclusive evidence and force dangerous legislation, in fact it is pretty irresponsible.

 

But what gets funding? Saying something might be a problem....or preaching doom?

 

But obviously, we all know politicians and celebrities are notorious for having sound scientific beliefs.

[Icemelt]

Further, co2 is not just produced by man, in fact the majority of co2 produced is from nature (around 60%)

 

This is what you have.....

 

(.03)*(.4) = .012 = 1.2%

 

At best man is producing 1.2% of GW

 

How refreshing to read something from the unindoctrinated

But you’re correct there is more, much more.

It is by no means proven that GHGs are the primary cause of global warming and, as you point out, CO2 is only one of the minor GHGs anyway.

Up until recently, increases in CO2 concentration have always lagged temperature increases, and not led them. Although very recent fluctuations may not appear to fit exactly with trends in the past, their effect is nevertheless so minimal as to not show up in geological scales. It is therefore very possible that similar concentrations of CO2 may have occurred for a few decades in the not too distance past, since they would also not be detectable on geological scales.

Furthermore for GHGs to be the primary cause of global warming driving climate change, the troposphere must be warming SIGNIFICANTLY faster than the surface temperature. And, despite several attempts to rewrite the rule book, the GHG/GW enthusiasts have been unable to establish that this is the case.

The IPCC agree there are inconsistencies between surface, tropospheric and global warming.

“The broad conclusion is that the multi-decadal global climate models are unable to accurately simulate the linear trends of surface and tropospheric temperatures for the 1979-1999 time period on the regional and tropical zonally-averaged spatial scale. Their ability to skilfully simulate the global averages surface and tropospheric temperature trend on this time scale is, at best, inconclusive”

[Icemelt]

SkepticLance I changed the scales for you as requested, reducing the timescale to 100M years and multiplying the CO2 scale by 4. Nevertheless, as you can see, there really isn't any evidence to indicate that human activity in the last 50 years has had any affect at all. The sea level has hardly moved in the past 4,000 years and neither has global temperature. Furthermore the bulk of the carbon dioxide increase occurred during the period 50 to 20,000 years ago which does not correspond with global industrialisation. It is also obvious that the temperature goes up first, and the CO2 level follows later as a consequence of the increase in temperature.

A rise in temperature causes an increase in CO2.

An increase in CO2 has not up to now caused a rise in temperature !

 

[theCPE]

Yeh, like the original poster stated (only in the reverse) it isn't really that difficult to do a careful and detailed analysis of the available data, current and historical to see how at best the idea of man made GW is inconclusive and miniscule.

 

People should really try to concentrate more on determining the truth of things on their own before blindly listening to politicians or groups with obvious bias.

[ParanoiA]

On the top CO2 chart there's a greater increase starting about the point 500 years up to 40 years ago, than there is the last 50 years. What's up with that?

 

I noticed the sea level chart is in metres, but wouldn't a smaller metric be more accurate and useful? Like centimeters or something? I'm not even sure meters is all that honest of a scale.

 

On the bottom chart...what's with those two colder spikes in the last 10 years?

[theCPE]

Well interestingly enough, in large portions of the country this year record lows were recorded.

 

Not conclusive evidence that man made GW isn't real, just food for thought.

[KLB]

I think there are a few things that some people don't realize mainly because they have a preconceived belief which misguides their attempts of researching the topic.

 

First, anyone that sites numbers of papers written on GW as evidence it exists is well, silly. There is never a shortage of ignorance and sheep flock together.

You mean like the Union of Concerned Scientists, the National Academy of Sciences, National Science Foundation, et al.?

 

Since the GW deniers are going out of their way to dismiss or belittle the IPCC, I thought I'd provide a link to a Union of Concerned Scientists article that explains what the IPCC is and how it works:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/the-ipcc.html

 

Here is a summary of the latest IPCC report by the Union of Concerned Scientists:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/ipcc-highlights1.html

 

It should be noted that the IPCC reports are some of the most heavily scrutinized and peer reviewed scientific reports to be published. There are very few reports that get more scrutiny before being published (see UCS link describing how the IPCC works above).

 

The evidence has been accumulating since the 19th century (A history lesson on global warming: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/31/AR2007013101808.html)

and the level of agreement on this issue is greater than most scientific theories. The only way global warming could be more conclusively proven to be true is to do nothing and watch things unfold.

 

The time for debate on this issue is over. GW deniers need to be ignored and we must move forward with finding solutions. The solutions must provide developing countries a means to develop without continuing to exasperate the problem and developed countries must find ways to reduce their impact.

 

I don't see the need to act as drain on society as much as an opportunity. It is an opportunity to move society forward by forcing the development of technologies that will allow us to harness energy from new and innovative sources and to use that energy more efficiently. It will force society to become more creative in the utilization of natural resources. In the long run this will be good for the environment and good for society (irregardless of the GW issue).

[theCPE]

It should be noted that the IPCC reports are some of the most heavily scrutinized and peer reviewed scientific reports to be published. There are very few reports that get more scrutiny before being published (see UCS link describing how the IPCC works above).

I have heard this argument so many times, it really is the only leg that most man made GW proponents base all defense on:

 

The number of articles about GW and that they are in peer reviewed journals.

 

How difficult is it to understand that number of articles in support of versus number of articles opposed to has zero effect on the correctness of either side. BTW peer reviewed doesn't mean anything. In my field of electrical engineering I read papers from peer reviewed journals all the time that are inconclusive, use misleading data analysis, and sometimes just plain wrong. A paper being in a peer reviewed journal does not mean right.

 

 

 

The time for debate on this issue is over. GW deniers need to be ignored and we must move forward with finding solutions.

Yes, suggesting that anyone that disagrees with you should be ignored is a strong basis for sound scientific research and accuracy.

 

It will force society to become more creative in the utilization of natural resources. In the long run this will be good for the environment and good for society (irregardless of the GW issue).

 

And this is the actual truth behind GW. It has nothing or little to do with whether or not man is causing it. It comes down to people with ulterior motives. The motives being harm "BIG OIL", force society to accelerate specific research, personal gain from the next big energy source.

 

How humurous. "irregardless of GW" and "ignore anyone that disagrees"

 

Right.

[bascule]

A rise in temperature causes an increase in CO2.

An increase in CO2 has not up to now caused a rise in temperature !

 

Possible conclusions:

 

1) Scientists are full of shit

2) Something has changed recently

 

Hmm, which of these am I going to go with...

 

I have heard this argument so many times' date=' it really is the only leg that most man made GW proponents base all defense on:

 

The number of articles about GW and that they are in peer reviewed journals.[/quote']

 

Yes, that would indicate that the arguments being presented have withstood the scrutiny of the scientific community. Contrast with icemelt's arguments, which seem to be bordering upon correlation implies causation.

 

How difficult is it to understand that number of articles in support of versus number of articles opposed to has zero effect on the correctness of either side.

 

So I take it you have absolutely no respect for the peer review process...

 

BTW peer reviewed doesn't mean anything.

 

Suspicion confirmed!

 

In my field of electrical engineering

 

Where your experiences directly translate to climate science...

 

I read papers from peer reviewed journals all the time that are inconclusive, use misleading data analysis, and sometimes just plain wrong. A paper being in a peer reviewed journal does not mean right.

 

No, it depends on the quality of the peer review process. In the case of IPCC Assessment Reports, they are arguably the most peer reviewed scientific papers on earth. So comparing them to some piddly electrical engineering journal isn't exactly apt

[KLB]

I have heard this argument so many times, it really is the only leg that most man made GW proponents base all defense on:

This is not true. The evidence has been brought forth in many different ways by many different people over time, but after a while the lay person starts to glaze over when faced with dueling charts. It simply gets to a point where it needs to be pointed out the sheer weight and mass of consensus on an issue.

 

How difficult is it to understand that number of articles in support of versus number of articles opposed to has zero effect on the correctness of either side. BTW peer reviewed doesn't mean anything.

This is the weakest argument I have heard to date on any debate outside of debates on intelligent design. What you have just said is that we can not trust any science and that we might as well give up on scientific investigation.

 

A paper being in a peer reviewed journal does not mean right.

In science oftentimes something can not be proved beyond any shadow of a doubt to satisfy the greatest skeptic until the predicted event happens. As such as a society we must make determinations based on the preponderance of evidence and scientific wisdom. In this case the preponderance of evidence and scientific research has become so overwhelming that the vast majority of all scientists studying this issue world wide have come to very similar conclusions. Their conclusions be boiled down to global warming is a real threat, human burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming AND we only have a limited time to act before current trends become irreversible.

 

Our knowledge of global warming and man's contribution to it isn't based on some individual paper in some obscure electrical engineering journal. It is based on a century of research by tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of scientists in countless different disciplines doing individual research that has over time begun to "paint" a very convincing picture that points to a specific global problem and a specific global cause. The amount of consensus within the scientific community on global warming may very well rival the amount of consensus on the validity of the theory of evolution.

 

Yes, suggesting that anyone that disagrees with you should be ignored is a strong basis for sound scientific research and accuracy.

There is a time for debate and skepticism on an issue and there is a time to put an end to debate and take action. With global warming if the preponderance of science is correct as the vast majority of scientists and scientific institutions have concluded, then the time we have to take action is quickly running out. Prudence dictates that we stop debating and take action.

 

The motives being harm "BIG OIL", force society to accelerate specific research, personal gain from the next big energy source.

Oh I'm so sure that the scientists that have been working on this issue for the past seventy years all had it out for big oil and wanted to find personal gain from the next energy source. Yes folks this is one big conspiracy and the vast majority of scientists and scientific institutions have been duped or are in on the conspiracy. It all makes perfect sense to me now.

[1veedo]

Iveedo; i did read post 13, thought about a reply, but thought you were kidding. the very chart below you post shows the counts of CO2, back a million years has not significantly changed.

No, we're talking about a FACT here and this issue is absolutely not debatable.

 

CO2 would have been between 180 and 300ppm before 1750 (because this is natural range for CO2). Today it's up to 379ppm (79ppm if you cant do math, or at least 26%). This is just data and nothing more.

then mans contributions on an insignificant amount, which it is, is just as insignificant.

On a matter-of-fact basis, the total increase of CO2 during the 20th century was almost entirely anthropogenic. Volcanoes put out a whopping 1% (pdf). This is again a fact. End of story.

 

Disagreeing here without proper citation is just blatant denial, contributes nothing to the conversation, and has no place on these forums.

1vedoo said I couldn’t back up my comments with evidence and challenged me to produce some names, since he disbelieves there is anyone eminently qualified who is opposed to current theories. I haven't counted them but I guess there must be over 50 listed with some pretty astonishing qualifications. I can bore you with plenty more if you wish !

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of scientists agree with global warming. You can find the same magnitude of "qualified" scientists that disagree with evolution. Does this make evolution incorrect? No, of course not. Why is climate science any different?

 

The hypothesis has always been that increases in CO2 concentration directly relate to temperature increases. However' date=' there are a couple of problems with this hypothesis. The relationship is usually assumed linear which has never been proven. Also, the effect is assumed immediate which once again has never been proven.[/quote']Actually, this has never been an assumption. Scientists have actually "assumed" quite the opposite.

 

1) The climate works through feedback chains and thus an increase in CO2 rising the temperature a little bit can melt ice which raises temperatures even more (at the same time there are sinks in the climate). All of this is very "chaotic" (for lack of a better word) and thus the relationship has never been assumed to be linear.

2) The impact CO2 has on the climate is delayed to a very large extent. CO2 spends a really long time in the atmosphere and some of these feedback chains take a little while to kick in.

Just like the famine and global cooling scares of the 70's, GW is a fad.

Global cooling during the 1970s was completely different then today. During the 1970s there was really very few scientific paper published in peer-review about global warming. Most of the information about global cooling came from the media. If you want to argue that in the media global warming is a fad, I am in 100% agreement with you, but as a science, global warming is definitely not a fad.

 

Water vapor is the majority contributor to GW. In fact CO2 is only responsible for roughly 3% of GW. That is why kyoto protocols and other silly legislation would not only be ineffective but also dangerous to the economy...they focus on CO2.

The reason that CO2 is so effective is because of water vapor. CO2 increases water uptake in the atmosphere (by rising the temperature) -- it's a sort of feedback loop. Water vapor is a function of CO2. Water vapor can be added and taken out of the atmosphere very quickly while CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time. This has the effect that if you could remove CO2 from the atmosphere, water vapor would then decrease as well.

Further, co2 is not just produced by man, in fact the majority of co2 produced is from nature (around 60%)

As I pointed out, it's almost entirely caused by man. I think it's funny though that you quote 60% while another global warming denier quotes like .02 and "insignificant" -- even you global warming deniers cant get your arguments together!

The sun DOES have cycles.

Yes, and the sun has been getting "cooler" for about 8 thousand years. Irradiance has also decreased in the short term sense 1950, which also happens to be the period of time when most of the warming has occurred. So the suns influence on temperature decreased while at the same time, temperatures actually increased.

Up until recently, increases in CO2 concentration have always lagged temperature increases, and not led them.

This is factually not true. What you're referring to are about 800 years after a glacial period where temperatures rise before CO2. This is actually a very small portion of geological history (when we're talking about 25,40, and 100k year cycles) and definitely does not constitute "always."

 

Furthermore, what we've actually found out is that CO2 is a feedback agent. Higher temperatures cause more CO2 to be released in the atmosphere and at the same time, CO2 causes temperatures to increase. I remember learning at uni that the northern hemisphere gets uneven sunlight distribution that causes ice to melt in the north or something, which warms the Earth for about 800 years before CO2 kicks in. Without CO2, temperature variations in the past would not be nearly as large. The sun alone would change temperatures very little -- you need all of the different feedback agents at work to amplify the effect.

[theCPE]

First, I am not responsible for any other man made GW opponent's numbers. I will provide a link which not only has a list of resources but also does a better explanation than my prior one.

 

Secondly, I am curious as to how the scrutiny of peer reviewed journals are measured and how bascule quantified that IPCC or whatever is by far the most scrutinized especially compared to "piddly" ECE ones:)

 

ipcc sure isn't Nature and next time you ... well do anything in your daily life be sure to remember how "piddly" the field of ece is....

 

The point to gather from that is that articles and papers being published in peer reviewed journals is not evidence that should be used in debating the correctness of a theory. Which a vast majority of GW proponents do.

 

Anyway, back on topic.

 

Here is a link with some marvelous explanations.

 

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

 

P.S.

 

Of course my expertise in electrical engineering isn't directly related to GW...does this mean because of a degree I can't learn, research, and know about other fields?

[theCPE]

What you have just said is that we can not trust any science and that we might as well give up on scientific investigation.

Not at all. What I said is when an opponent to your theory provides scientific reason why it is wrong, you should refute the sciencetific reason presented....not point out how many articles back you.

 

Our knowledge of global warming and man's contribution to it isn't based on some individual paper in some obscure electrical engineering journal.

I sure hope not!!! Of course.......I really think you missed the boat on my comments.

 

Once again!

 

Pointing out how many papers have been published is not a scientific way of refuting opponents to your theory when they provide mathematical and scientific counter points.

 

It is based on a century of research by tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of scientists in countless different disciplines

Really, a century?

 

No, I hardly think so.

 

More like 20 years of GW "research". Climate records may have been going on for a century, but specific research and exploration on the idea of GW is very young.

 

 

then the time we have to take action is quickly running out.

 

That is exactly the dramatization that gore tries to push in his policies and movies. It is entirely unfounded and wrong, just like the first "hokey stick" graph for GW produced back in the 80's whereby 2000 the ppm of CO2 would be 600....

 

 

Oh I'm so sure that the scientists that have been working on this issue for the past seventy years all had it out for big oil and wanted to find personal gain from the next energy source. Yes folks this is one big conspiracy and the vast majority of scientists and scientific institutions have been duped or are in on the conspiracy. It all makes perfect sense to me now.

 

How does scientist get research funding....

 

by saying "this might be a problem"

 

or "the sky is falling"

[theCPE]

Without CO2, temperature variations in the past would not be nearly as large. The sun alone would change temperatures very little -- you need all of the different feedback agents at work to amplify the effect.

 

Exactly, and the current temperature increase from the trough of 1950s is far less than historical temperature swings. And yet there is the 20% increase in CO2 ppm currently.

 

CO2 probably does effect temperature, but the dynamic is still misunderstood.

[1veedo]

First' date=' I am not responsible for any other man made GW opponent's numbers. I will provide a link which not only has a list of resources but also does a better explanation than my prior one.

 

Secondly, I am curious as to how the scrutiny of peer reviewed journals are measured and how bascule quantified that IPCC or whatever is by far the most scrutinized especially compared to "piddly" ECE ones:)

 

ipcc sure isn't Nature and next time you ... well do anything in your daily life be sure to remember how "piddly" the field of ece is....

 

The point to gather from that is that articles and papers being published in peer reviewed journals is not evidence that should be used in debating the correctness of a theory. Which a vast majority of GW proponents do.

 

Anyway, back on topic.

 

Here is a link with some marvelous explanations.

 

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFo...ouse_data.html

 

P.S.

 

Of course my expertise in electrical engineering isn't directly related to GW...does this mean because of a degree I can't learn, research, and know about other fields?[/quote']Yep, those scientists have no idea what they're talking about. They never included water vapor in the math, how silly of them! I'm so glad we have the Internet where some idiot hillbilly from West Virginia with absolutely no credentials can say whatever he wants!

 

His charts 3 and 4 are actually completely made up so there's no way that .28% figure is correct. When looking at some more credible sources we find that CO2 has increased from 280 (275~284) to 379 ppm (I actually looked up the number this time: here). The overwhelmingly vast majority (we're talking almost 100% here) was caused by humans. That's an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels of 35.4%.

[1veedo]

Exactly' date=' and the current temperature increase from the trough of 1950s is far less than historical temperature swings. And yet there is the 20% increase in CO2 ppm currently.

 

CO2 probably does effect temperature, but the dynamic is still misunderstood.[/quote']Temperatures are rising at a rate ten times faster then any other time in the history of the planet. Historical temperature swings come nowhere close (we're talking orders of magnitude here).

 

The runner up is the paleocene-eocene thermal maximum (a rate 10+ times slower then today) when many species, from land animals to deep see fish, went extinct. If there is any indication into how drastic of a change these extinctions were, the demographics of the planet changed by such a large extent that mammals began to take over.

[theCPE]

Right.

 

So its ignore anyone that disagrees, or call them an idiot hillbilly.

 

That makes sense.

 

But your co2 increase is wrong.

 

From the CDIAC historical co2 ppm has averaged around 300, not 280.

 

So our current co2 is 25.5% higher than the historical average. Ofcourse that is how averages work right? You have years above and below a specific level and thus you end up with an average.

 

P.S. I was unaware that hillbillys knew what the internet was! Let alone GW!

[jackson33]

hmm...

 

isn't that the third time you've mentioned that stat?

 

would you care to offer a citation supporting it?

 

enc. wik; gives .046 as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and several sources claim mans contributions are 5% of this total. i did multiply in error to get .0023, when i should have divided .046 by .05 which is .0092.

 

there are estimates of mans contributions down to 3% or up to 6% and totals in the atmosphere of CO2 down to .03 % and up to .06% of the total. in all cases however there figures start with 1% which is not 77% nitrogen and 22% oxygen, which they seem to all agree on. regardless of the figures involved, they are generally refereed to as trace amounts.

[theCPE]

It is obvious that massive temperature swings have occurred historically, (ice ages beginning and ending) and there is absolutely no reason that swings of far less magnitude couldn't still occur today naturally. There also isn't any reason that such massive ones couldn't occur again.

 

If nature intends on some massive temperature swing to occur what do you GW proponents intend on doing.....stopping nature?

 

Or can nature no longer have these mood swings:)

 

What defines natural swings and man made ones? Or is there no defining line, from now on everything is man's fault?

[1veedo]

So its ignore anyone that disagrees' date=' or call them an idiot hillbilly.[/quote']Hey I'm from WV so I can call people hillbillies if I want! The point is that he made up numbers and has no credentials whatsoever to do so. It would be just as bad if I, or anyone else, made up random numbers, especially if they're not scientists (like this guy).

 

And no, CO2 was not at 300ppm. The natural range for CO2 is 180 to 300ppm, and the 1000 year average before 1750 just happens to be at 280ppm. I provided a reference for this.

 

PS jackson33 nobody cares about the total volume of the atmosphere that humans have altered. I'm sure even 50% of CO2 which only makes up like .038% of the atmosphere, would give us an extraordinarily small number here. Not all gases are created equal: What matters is the portion of CO2 we've changed. CO2 is a very important factor in the environment and changing this even slightly can impact the climate in very large ways.

[theCPE]

Could you provide the link then for the 280 as the avg, apparently I misread the CDIAC or something.

 

Also, the guy linked tons of sources, he was only using math to make his point, his numbers were from other sources with credentials.

 

Still if the average is 280 as opposed to 300, the idea of an average doesn't change...you can have swings both above and below and they don't have to be constant.

 

Also, what is the defining line between man made climatic changes and natural ones? Or can natural ones no longer occur now?

[1veedo]

sure, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html (this is in my above post as well), "Preindustrial CO2 mixing ratios were in the range 275-284 ppm"

It is obvious that massive temperature swings have occurred historically' date=' (ice ages beginning and ending) and there is absolutely no reason that swings of far less magnitude couldn't still occur today naturally. There also isn't any reason that such massive ones couldn't occur again.

 

If nature intends on some massive temperature swing to occur what do you GW proponents intend on doing.....stopping nature?

 

Or can nature no longer have these mood swings:)

 

What defines natural swings and man made ones? Or is there no defining line, from now on everything is man's fault?[/quote']theCPE we're talking about FACTS again here. Disagreeing with facts (as jackson33 does) is extremely counterproductive.

 

The largest historical temperature change occurred during the paleocene-eocene thermal maximum, a change of 5 to 8C over a few thousand years [wiki]. Humans on the other hand are causing temperatures to rise at a rate of .2C per decade, or 20C every thousand years (if it kept going at the same rate). This is an entire order of magnitude (10X) faster then the paleocene-eocene maximum. This point is not arguable! If you want to debate this then find yourself a references!

Also, the guy linked tons of sources, he was only using math to make his point, his numbers were from other sources with credentials.

Yes, he referenced a couple sources. What he also did was make up numbers (as in charts 3 and 4) and manipulated these numbers with absolutely no theoretical justification for doing so. He apparently doesn't even understand that water vapor is a direct result of CO2! Where he says, "Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.," for instance or ,"Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin," he's ignoring that the increase in water vapor after 1750 is actually 99.999% indirectly caused by human activities. So he represents CO2 as a human factor, and the 95% of global warming from water vapor that is caused by humans as "natural," because he does not understand what a feedback system is, which are exceedingly basic concepts you could learn in meteorology101.

 

But no, the scientists don't know what they're talking about. Apparently this one guy on the Internet who would fail meteorology 101 has proven a hundred years worth of research incorrect.