Global Warming explained - "inconvenient" or otherwise!

[SkepticLance]

To KLB.

 

The reason it is distasteful is because it is just plain nasty, and is something that is done only by nasty people.

 

I live in a small community, and malicious and vindictive gossip is a major hobby for many of the residents. Often, when I am out and about in this community, I join groups of people I know in conversation. Sometimes that conversation turns to character assassination. When that happens, I do two things.

1. I leave.

2. I tell myself that it is all lies.

 

I have been following the global warming debate for over ten years. I have come across the character assassination tactic many times before. Sometimes it is people like you attacking sceptics. Sometimes it is sceptics attacking their opponents. Whenever I come across that tactic, I do two things.

1. I delete the reference

2. I tell myself that it is all lies.

 

I strongly suggest to other people following this thread that they treat your increasingly unpleasant postings exactly the same way.

[ParanoiA]

Lol, exactly my point.

 

And what was that point? That people who don't know shouldn't ask questions? Was that it?

[theCPE]

Have you ever taken physics or a "real" science class where you have to understand the mathematics involved?

Yeh...Id wager ive taken more hours of science/engineering courses than you....but that isn't the point.

 

If you really want proof that 1.2% is incorrect, all you have to look at one of the premises, "man produces 40% of CO2"

From sources I have read I have gathered those percentages, as someone else linked, you can find different values from different sources...from 70% to 97% for water vapor....

 

further down in the wiki article is this quote:

Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 90%

 

I have no idea if 1.2% is accurate...but what I do know is 90% is complete bullshit and any fool that tries to suggest that currently man is causing 90% of GW doesn't understand the terminology or the process. I will once again prove why shortly, more quotes from you coming.

 

Humans have produced 99% of the observed increase in CO2. Volcanoes have produced about 1% of this

Let me point out how statistics (or in this case data) can be molded to say what you want. The paper compares total CO2 output of humans to volcanoes. The problem with that comparison is that everything within human activity is included and not just the burning of fossil fuels. Why does it matter? Well obviously some things that humans do to produce CO2 just can't be stopped....well as long as we want to live that is. Of course you didn't catch this, because the numbers support what you are saying...thus you don't question them.

 

Also, as I've tried to explain over and over again, an increase in CO2 causes an increase in water vapor. That 97% water vapor is actually caused by human activities through a feedback system that has been observed and is very well-understood.

From all of my research, including reading the wiki article people are linking.....it is temperature increases that causes a feedback and introduces extra water vapor. And the link you provided was to buy a book...that isn't very helpful. If it is temperature and not co2 that cuases the water vapor feedback loop it is a moot point as we have seen a 1 degree temperature increase in the past century compared to much larger swings historically.

 

Btw how is it that you assume this one guy knows better then the entire scientific community? You're just trying to appeal to authority, "well my source is better then yours." I would contend that several thousand scientists have a much better handle on things then this guy.

Well prove where he is wrong? I liked his resource because of the simplicity and the excellent mathematical breakdown. Which you can't provide a source doing the same from your coveted IPCC....I mean if a thousand scientists with all the correct answers can't provide an equally simplistic and easy to follow explanation what gives?

 

So in conclusion....you are still championing that 90% of GW is currently a result of man.

 

Lets talk about that.

 

GW as I have shown with links from the EPA is ALL sources whether human or natural that create a warming of the planet so that life can exist.

 

If you are suggesting that 90% of our current average surface temperature of 55 F is due to man you are ridiculusly wrong and confused.

 

However, I have a feeling the number is either being misquoted by you or was misleading in its original context.

 

To arrive at a 90% number the qualification would have to be temperature increases from some X historical average. Meaning if the historical average is 55 F, humans are currently responsible for 90% of the 1 degree average surface temperature increase. Of course the reason it is worded IMPROPERLY and in the misleading way of "90% of GW (which once again is the entire warming of the planet from ice block to 55F) is due to man" is for shock value and to scare people who can't think on their own.

[KLB]

The reason it is distasteful is because it is just plain nasty, and is something that is done only by nasty people.

Is it truly nasty to ask pointed questions? This isn't about blind smear campaign to discredit other opinions. This is about questioning the validity of the research being presented.

 

ExxonMobil has depended upon people not questioning the motivations behind reports. They also depended upon good people like members in this forum innocently repeating and/or citing fraudulent reports that have been planted via ExxonMobil's proxies to help those reports gain credibility. This is NO DIFFERENT than what the cigarette industry did and as the UCS report showed this is not accidental. ExxonMobil intentionally borrowed the cigarette industry's playbook on disinformation.

 

How many fewer people would have died if people had been more vigilant about removing the fraudulent cigarette industry planted disinformation from the public debate over cigarette smoking? The cigarette industry's own papers, documents and memos proved that the cigarette industry knew that it was putting out false data and it was done because of corporate greed.

 

It has been documented that many of the key players in the cigarette industry's efforts to sow disinformation over the science of the dangers of cigarette smoking are the exact same players who have been playing key roles in the effort to manufacture debate over climate change. It is well documented that these players intentionally sowed disinformation to manufacture debate over cigarette smoking and they knew the information was fraudulent. How can we say that we should trust these sources today on the issue of climate change?

 

Smearing good people because one doesn't agree with them is not a sound means of debate and discussion. HOWEVER, this does not mean we should not question and disclose those who are INTENTIONALLY spreading disinformation as has been done for ExxonMobil and the cigarette industry.

 

ALL I have been doing is finding and referencing reports that not only draw the connections between the research and ExxonMobil, but have also documented the intentional effort to spread disinformation. This is an incredibly important part of this debate.

[SkepticLance]

KLB

There would be no problem if you left personalities, and concentrated on science.

[Dak]

And please don't reply with pleas to read this and read that. These are the same kinds of articles and editorials that are disputed by experts.

 

If you want just one thing to read to get an accurate appraisal of the scientific view, i suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

espescially the Oreskes, 2004 citation, which proves theres a consensus, which is:

 

Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"

 

 

===============

 

OK people, this is a science site. that means that by being here -- on a science site -- you kinda have to do things scientifically where applicable.

 

That means that if something is a scientific fact, you may not simply ignore it. It is not tolerated whilst discussing any other area of science, and it will not be tolerated whilst discussing climatology and GW.

 

Its a scientific fact that, (a) recently, the world has been experiencing an anomalous period of climate change, which (b) coincides suspiciously with mankind's level of industrialization. it's also scientifically accepted that © the anomaly is not caused entirely by natural fluctuations in the climate, and that (d) the recent temperature change not attributable to natural fluctuations is caused by mankind. (e) CO2 probably plays a huge role in this.

 

Yes, there is some uncertainty. yes, there are some scientific questions about the facts. however, there are no significant and serious arguments against the above put forth by scientists (serious being defined as 'actually good enough an argument to be published', as opposed to 'dont know what i'm talking about but rejecting it anyway'). hence, there is a consensus. and the fact that there is a consensus, and this is a science site, means that you can't just go 'hey, this hypothesys that's accepted by science is bull'.

 

I'd request that anyone who wishes to argue against the above provides a link to a peer-reviewed article supporting their claim. by all means, if you can find some actual peer-reviewed science that argues against the consensus, then post it up. else, you have to admit that the reports (such as the IPCC one) acurately reflect the conclusions of our best method of discerning facts.

 

outright refuse to acknowledge it all you want, but also realise that that kind of approach has no place on a science site. iow, keep it to yourself.

 

Brief elaborations on the consensus:

 

(a): recently, the world has been experiencing an anomalous period of climate change

 

This shouldn't be hard, as it's a direct observation.

 

Its also pretty graph time, again:

 

 

right is a long time ago, left is recent.

 

note the general temperature trend to remain broadly the same. i.e., natural fluctuations occour, but the temperature stays roughly around the same point. note also the speed with which the temperature changes.

 

there are two anomolies. on the right, we have the obviously anomolouse ice-age, causing the humungous rise in temperature as the ice age ended.

 

The other anomoly is to the left of the graph, with '2004' pointing to it. such a sudden increase in such a short time is clearly anomolous.

 

To put it in prospective, trace the black line starting from the right, up to the first peak, then down to the first trough, which we'll call point A. now, trace it up to the next peak, past the next trough, and onto the next peak, which we'll call point B.

 

The temperature change from A to B represents one of the sharpest temperature changes in our history, and it takes > 1,500 years to achieve.

 

Now, look at the recent anomoly on the left. note that its an even greater increase in temperature, and it takes <100 years to achieve. this is unarguably anomolouse (the insert shows the anomoly clearer, but the main graph shows that its anomolous clearer)

 

 

(b): which coincides suspiciously with mankind's level of industrialization.

 

This should also be quite inescapably clear from the above graph, given the time-frame

 

©: the anomaly is not caused entirely by natural fluctuations in the climate

 

given that the temperature change is anomolous, and theres no known natural precedent that caused as sharp an increase, and we haven't noticed any natural oddities (eg, sun activity, earth's orbit, volcano activity, etc) that could explain it, this is a pretty obvious conclusion.

 

(d): the recent temperature change not attributable to natural fluctuations is caused by mankind.

 

pretty safe assumption, given (b) and ©

 

(e): CO2 probably plays a huge role in this.

 

see literature.

[1veedo]

From sources I have read I have gathered those percentages, as someone else linked, you can find different values from different sources...from 70% to 97% for water vapor....

That's not the issue. Whatever the impact of CO2/water vapor, the fact of the matter is that saying 40% of CO2 is anthropogenic is incorrect.

 

This, specifically, was the statement I was referring to: "man produces 40% of CO2." I have no idea what this has to do with the other premise, "water vapor 97%."

Let me point out how statistics (or in this case data) can be molded to say what you want. The paper compares total CO2 output of humans to volcanoes. The problem with that comparison is that everything within human activity is included and not just the burning of fossil fuels. Why does it matter? Well obviously some things that humans do to produce CO2 just can't be stopped....well as long as we want to live that is. Of course you didn't catch this, because the numbers support what you are saying...thus you don't question them.

Well this is largely unimportant. Even if some of this comes from human activities other then burning fossil fuels (for instance land usage, farming, etc), the statement "humans produce 99% of CO2" is still correct. You're just trying to doge a bullet here with some backwards logic.

From all of my research, including reading the wiki article people are linking.....it is temperature increases that causes a feedback and introduces extra water vapor. And the link you provided was to buy a book...that isn't very helpful. If it is temperature and not co2 that cuases the water vapor feedback loop it is a moot point as we have seen a 1 degree temperature increase in the past century compared to much larger swings historically.

The book is available online that you can view as a reference. Your observation is correct through. CO2 causes a slight increase in temperature which increase water uptake in the atmosphere, causing an even larger increase in temperature. From the book, "more then half of the warming expected in response to human activities will arise from feedback mechanisms internal to the climate system..." (1). "It is known from basic physical principles that the vapor pressure in equilibrium with a water surface increases exponentially with temperatures a rate such that a 1 percent change in absolutely temperature, a change of about 3C, is associated with an approximately 20 percent increase in saturation vapor pressure. Because water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere, the dependence of vapor pressure on temperatures forms the basis of one of the strongest positive feedbacks in the climate system."

 

Although water vapor is a greenhouse gas, it is not a climate forcing. "Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting climate sensitivity and are now better understood than in the TAR." " Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence that a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. Positive forcing tends to warm the surface while negative forcing tends to cool it. In this report radiative forcing values are for 2005 relative to pre-industrial conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in watts per square metre (W m-2). See Glossary and Section 2.2 for further details."

 

This right here is really the basic stuff. Water may be a powerful GHG (36-66 w/o clouds, w/ clouds 66-85) but there is a difference between a greenhouse gas and radiative forcing. H2O concentration in the atmosphere is a direct result of temperature. If you put H2O in the atmosphere, it rains immediately and conversely if you remove water from the atmosphere, more water would quickly evaporate from the ground (mostly over the ocean I would assume).

 

The interesting thing about water vapor is that, because it is a function of temperature, the abundance of the stuff in the atmosphere is a direct result of CO2 emissions. Where CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time, water can come and go very rapidly. So when you increase CO2 levels you also increase the amount of water in the atmosphere. If you reduce CO2 levels, assuming it were possible to just take it out of the atmosphere, water vapor would quickly be removed from the atmosphere which would cause an even further drop in temperature.

much larger swings historically.

You have yet to provide a reference for this. As I have pointed out before, with credible citations (ie peer-reviewed and published in a science journal), there has not been a single incident of warming for at least 65 million years that occurred at a rate anywhere near today's observed increase in temperature. Have temperatures been higher then they are today? Of course! But this isn't the issue.

If you are suggesting that 90% of our current average surface temperature of 55 F is due to man you are ridiculusly wrong and confused.

 

To arrive at a 90% number the qualification would have to be temperature increases from some X historical average. Meaning if the historical average is 55 F, humans are currently responsible for 90% of the 1 degree average surface temperature increase. Of course the reason it is worded IMPROPERLY and in the misleading way of "90% of GW (which once again is the entire warming of the planet from ice block to 55F) is due to man" is for shock value and to scare people who can't think on their own.

This is a straw man. I am not excluding natural factors on the climate. All I am suggesting that the current increase in temperature as measured per decade sense the mid-to-late 1970s is 90% anthropogenic. Temperatures have only risen .6C sense then, not 55 F (GISS).

 

I have also pointed out that global warming sense 1900 is not 90%. Current (eg today) warming only is what's 90% anthropogenic.

[1veedo]

That means that if something is a scientific fact' date=' you may not simply ignore it. It is not tolerated whilst discussing any other area of science, and it will not be tolerated whilst discussing climatology and GW....

 

I'd request that anyone who wishes to argue against the above provides a link to a peer-reviewed article supporting their claim. by all means, if you can find some actual peer-reviewed science that argues against the consensus, then post it up. else, you have to admit that the reports (such as the IPCC one) acurately reflect the conclusions of our best method of discerning facts.

 

outright refuse to acknowledge it all you want, but also realise that that kind of approach has no place on a science site. iow, keep it to yourself.

[/quote']Thank You.

[KLB]

KLB

There would be no problem if you left personalities, and concentrated on science.

I am concentrating on the science or more appropriately stated the lack there of. I am not smearing you or others here. I am not smearing respectable scientists. I am raising the issue of the intentional planting of fraudulent science into this issue. This is as valid of a concern in this discussion as any. The problem for GW deniers is that it is very highly inconvenient because it casts a dark shadow of doubt over the reports GW deniers rely upon to support their side of the issue.

 

The attempt to silence me isn't about the smearing of respectable scientists it is about not having to address the fact that much of the information that GW deniers rely upon was manufactured and planted to sow disinformation.

 

I will not go away on this issue. It is too important. We can not hold good scientific debates when one side is using fraudulent data.

 

I might also note that there has been no reservations by GW deniers to dismiss ANY scientific institution that is inconvenient to them. This includes the IPCC and their reports, which are the most heavily peer reviewed documents in this entire issue. You can not have it both ways.

 

Look if you want to be a GW denier, and stick your head in the sand, I don't care, but there are many people out there who are not sure what to believe and they need to know what the motivation is behind the reports that try to sow doubt about climate change.

[Icemelt]

OK since you all seem to think that only the past 100,000 years is relevant, I have restructured the charts to span the past 1,000,000 years on a log time scale. This provides us with a good view of the past 100,000 years, placing much greater emphasis on the past 0 - 500 years. As you will see, changing the time frame hasn’t changed the obvious conclusions. The bulk of the CO2 increase is still shown to be 50 to 500 years ago, and both the rise in temperature and sea levels have slowed by approximately 98% over the past 12,000 years.

 

To say that the carbon dioxide, global temperature and sea levels are rising faster than ever before, is quite simply so untrue as to be laughable. Minor decadal changes in weather patterns do not qualify as climate changes. They are so small as to be absorbed into the bigger picture, and don’t even show up on the chart, even if we reduce the frame of our picture to just a few hundred years.

 

I know that some of you are convinced that so many scientists can’t be wrong, however it is important that this is put in perspective. What does the term “so many” mean, and how many of these “so many” are actually experts in the CAUSES of climate change ?

 

Professor John Christy (Lead Author IPCC & Prof Dept Atmospheric Science University of Alabama)

“I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true”

 

Professor Paul Reiter (IPCC & Pasteur Institute Paris)

“This claim that the IPCC is the World’s top 2,500 scientists, you look at the bibliographies of the people and it’s simply not true. There are quite a number of non-scientists”

 

Professor Richard Linzen (IPCC & Prof Dept of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science MIT)

“To build the number up to 2,500 they have to start taking in reviewers and government people and so on, anyone whoever came close to them. And none of them are asked to agree. Many of them disagree”

 

Professor Paul Reiter (IPCC & Pasteur Institute Paris)

“Those people who are specialists, but don’t agree with the polemic, and resign, and there have been a number that I know of, they are simply put on the author list and become part of this 2,500 of the World’s top scientists.

 

[Dak]

OK since you all seem to think that only the past 100,000 years is relevant, I have restructured the charts to span the past 1,000,000 years on a log time scale. This provides us with a good view of the past 100,000 years, placing much greater emphasis on the past 0 - 500 years. As you will see, changing the time frame hasn’t changed the obvious conclusions. The bulk of the CO2 increase is still shown to be 50 to 500 years ago, and both the rise in temperature and sea levels have slowed by approximately 98% over the past 12,000 years.

 

none of which change the inescapable and scientifically supported fact that, over the last 100 years, we have experienced an obviously anomolous increase in temperature.

 

nor any of the other facts accepted by science.

 

I know that some of you are convinced that so many scientists can’t be wrong, however it is important that this is put in perspective. What does the term “so many” mean, and how many of these “so many” are actually experts in the CAUSES of climate change ?

 

all of them that publish papers on the causes of climate change.

 

Professor John Christy (Lead Author IPCC & Prof Dept Atmospheric Science University of Alabama)

[...]

 

Professor Paul Reiter (IPCC & Pasteur Institute Paris)

[...]

 

Professor Richard Linzen (IPCC & Prof Dept of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science MIT)

[...]

 

Professor Paul Reiter (IPCC & Pasteur Institute Paris)

[...]

 

have any of these published peer-reviewed papers disagreeing with the scientific consensus?

 

If not, i'd have to assume that they don't actually have any valid arguments/data to back their conclusions up with.

[1veedo]

Ok Icemelt I'll play fair game with you. I want to ask you though, sense these charts seem to be made by you, is there any way you can make time increase linearly?

 

Your argument is that current warming is unimportant in the bigger picture because sea levels and CO2 levels are rising slower today then they have 50 to 500 years ago?

 

I'm slightly puzzled by your CO2 and temperature graphs because they do not represent the 25,40,and 100k year CO2/temperature cycles that have been occurring for roughly 5 million years, and for which we have exceedingly good data of over the past 650,000 years (via ice core measurements).

 

From this graph it seems to me that for at least 400,000 years, CO2 has been fairly predictable -- varying between 180 and 300ppm (just like the IPCC said). Today we're up there at 379ppm and this has occurred all within about two hundred years. Does this not seem like a dramatic increase to you?

 

The same picture is true for temperatures as well.

[theCPE]

Even if some of this comes from human activities other then burning fossil fuels (for instance land usage, farming, etc), the statement "humans produce 99% of CO2" is still correct. You're just trying to doge a bullet here with some backwards logic.

Are you kididng????

 

I feel like I am wasting my time with you. To say it is unimportant what amount of the co2 produced by man comes from burning fossil fuels is absurd!

 

Of course it matters how much comes directly from burning fossil fuels, otherwise why are we trying to enact legislations limiting the burning of fossil fuels!!!!!

 

Dear god.

 

"It is known from basic physical principles that the vapor pressure in equilibrium with a water surface increases exponentially with temperatures a rate such that a 1 percent change in absolutely temperature, a change of about 3C, is associated with an approximately 20 percent increase in saturation vapor pressure.

 

See someone with an objective understanding would immediately gather from this that

 

a) There is very little additionaly water vapor due to increased core temperature.

b) The VAST majority of water vapor and therefore GW is still due to natural occurences.

 

All I am suggesting that the current increase in temperature as measured per decade sense the mid-to-late 1970s is 90% anthropogenic. Temperatures have only risen .6C sense then, not 55 F

Exactly.

 

Just like I pointed out in my previous post if you would have read it and understood it, the misleading way you (or the original author) was labeling it was for a reason. It is quite a different story to say man is responsible for 90% of a .6C change, than man is responsible for 90% of current GW.

 

However, lets do some more math and test your OWN data.

 

Using your own data

 

.6/3 = .2

 

(.2)*(20) = 4%

 

Man has caused a 4% increase in water vapor by burning fossil fuels.

While man has also caused co2 increases of some X % of 25% due to burning fossil fuels.

 

Since you didn't agree that 40% of the total co2 in the atmosphere is from burning fossil fuels and you haven't provided one, I will say 60% of total co2 is due to man and of that only 50% is from fossil fuels... Once again...if you have a sited number of the total perecentage of ALL co2 in the atmosphere that is due to man by all means provide the link!

 

Further, I will use 76% being water vapor instead of 97 (wiki)

 

So CO2 has increased 25%.

And we are assuming 50% was from fossil fuels.

 

thats 12.5% increase in co2 due to our fossil fuel usage.

 

which means man using fossil fuels causes 10% of the total co2 causing GW.

 

Man also increased water vapor by 4%, and is responsible for 3.8% of all water vapor.

 

.10 * .24 = .024

.038 * .76 = .028

 

total = 5.2%

 

Man is therefore using your numbers responsible for 5.2% of GW.

[theCPE]

BTW those calculations in which man came out to be responsible for 5.2%.....that was with using the TOP number from wiki of how much GW comes from co2.

 

If I had used the bottom number 9%....heh...well that would basically mean man was responsible for ehhhh, about 4% instead of 5.2%.

 

And BTW just to make a point of once again how ridiculus the 90% number is:

 

If man is responsible for all 25% increase in co2 through fossil fuels, that means 20% of the total co2 is due to man.

.24 * .20 = .048

.038 * .76 = .028

 

7.6% Which of course is once again assuming man caused all 25% increase in co2 through burning fossil fuels. That sure is a far cry from 90% of GW.

 

Wow.

[SkepticLance]

1veedo said :

 

the fact of the matter is that saying 40% of CO2 is anthropogenic is incorrect.

 

In about 100 years, 1900 to 2000 AD, atmospheric CO2 increased from approx. 300 ppm to approx 370 ppm. The 70 ppm increase is approx. 19% of the final amount. If we assume that all the increase is anthropogenic, then this says that (for this 100 years) 19% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic. If we carry out this calculation over a longer time period - say 1800 to 2007 AD, then the percentage is greater - about 28%.

[Dak]

Are you kididng????

 

I feel like I am wasting my time with you. To say it is unimportant what amount of the co2 produced by man comes from burning fossil fuels is absurd!

 

Of course it matters how much comes directly from burning fossil fuels, otherwise why are we trying to enact legislations limiting the burning of fossil fuels!!!!!

 

Dear god.

 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html

 

The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities and other sources.

 

the first graph shows (for the US) the predominance of burining fossil fules as a source of anthropogenic CO2.

 

bear in mind, aswell, that deforestation results in the CO2 being readsorbed slower, so increases in atmospheric CO2 are due both to emissions (natural and anthropogenic) and slower readsorption.

 

Man has caused a 4% increase in water vapor by burning fossil fuels.

While man has also caused co2 increases of some X % of 25% due to burning fossil fuels.

 

Since you didn't agree that 40% of the total co2 in the atmosphere is from burning fossil fuels and you haven't provided one, I will say 60% of total co2 is due to man and of that only 50% is from fossil fuels... Once again...if you have a sited number of the total perecentage of ALL co2 in the atmosphere that is due to man by all means provide the link!

 

Further, I will use 76% being water vapor instead of 97 (wiki)

 

So CO2 has increased 25%.

And we are assuming 50% was from fossil fuels.

 

thats 12.5% increase in co2 due to our fossil fuel usage.

 

which means man using fossil fuels causes 10% of the total co2 causing GW.

 

Man also increased water vapor by 4%, and is responsible for 3.8% of all water vapor.

 

.10 * .24 = .024

.038 * .76 = .028

 

total = 5.2%

 

Man is therefore using your numbers responsible for 5.2% of GW.

 

umm...

 

IPCC 2001, in http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html

 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 379 ppm in 2005[,][...] a 35 percent increase. Almost all of the increase is due to human activities

 

so, it's scientifically accepted that there's been a 35% increase in atmospheric CO2, almost all of which is anthropogenic.

 

from the latest IPCC report, this leaves CO2 as a majour candidate for causing/contributing to anthropogenic global warming.

 

I have no idea what you're maths is all about, but i'll remind you that it's scientifically accepted that man is responsable for all/most of the anomolous temperature rise recently.

 

 

1veedo said :

 

the fact of the matter is that saying 40% of CO2 is anthropogenic is incorrect.

 

In about 100 years, 1900 to 2000 AD, atmospheric CO2 increased from approx. 300 ppm to approx 370 ppm. The 70 ppm increase is approx. 19% of the final amount. If we assume that all the increase is anthropogenic, then this says that (for this 100 years) 19% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic. If we carry out this calculation over a longer time period - say 1800 to 2007 AD, then the percentage is greater - about 28%.

 

~35% of the atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, either by being put there by us, or by remaining there due to our deforestation (see above IPCC report via epa site)

[theCPE]

Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 379 ppm in 2005[,][...] a 35 percent increase. Almost all of the increase is due to human activities

 

I had been using numbers from the CDIAC, to calculate co2 increase that being:

 

77/300 = 25%, however you know what, I am cool with using your number of 35%.

 

so, it's scientifically accepted that there's been a 35% increase in atmospheric CO2, almost all of which is anthropogenic.

Again, anthropogenic does not mean from burning fossil fuels. And again, the amount from burning fossil fuels matters. Why does the ipcc not have any number like this? I believe it is obvious, because it is far better for the ipcc's position to say that the "majority" (no number still) is from anthropogenic sources.....

 

I have no idea what you're maths is all about, but i'll remind you that it's scientifically accepted that man is responsable for all/most of the anomolous temperature rise recently.

Haha, my math is very simple to follow. It involves using the numbers provided now by both you and veedo to demonstrate what % man is responsible for GW. The quote from veedo has been 90%, and was 85% by 1950 or something, so I am pointing out how that number is wrong.

 

And AGAIN there is a difference in man caused co2 and man caused co2 through burning fossil fuel. The ipcc isn't focusing on the difference and isn't quantifying it, which is mistruthful and misleading. Why would we even enact legislation limiting fossil fuel burning and have ipcc not even focus on how much GW is the result of specifically that???

 

 

So the math again, using the new co2 concentration.

 

From veedo's own numbers man has caused a 4% increase in water vapor.

 

From your own numbers man has caused the majority of a 35% increase in co2.

 

However, we have no idea what portion of the 35% increase is due to burning fossil fuels...until anyone can site a number this value can only be assumed.

 

I will run the math twice first with 50% of the increase in co2 being from fossil fuel burning and with man being responsible for 30% (majority).

 

Then I will do it again with 80% coming from fossil fuels and again 30% from man.

 

.5*.3 = 15% of the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

 

15/135 = 11% of the total amount of co2 in the atmosphere is from burning fossil fuels.

 

.24*.11 = .026 = 2.6% (again assuming the largest % from wiki of co2 contribution to GW if I used the smallest 9% this would be drastically smaller)

 

4/104 = 3.8% of total water vapor is from man burning fossil fuels

 

.038*.76 = .0288 = 2.9%

 

Total contributions of GW by man burning fossil fuels is 5.5%.

 

Substituting .5 with .8 like I said I would increases that number to

 

.8*.3 = .24

 

24/135 = 18%

 

.24*.18 = 4.32% + 2.9 = 7.22% of GW comes from burning fossil fuels.

 

7%!!!!!!!!!

 

7% of GW is currently attributed to burning fossil fuels.

 

But why would the ipcc quote that when they can instead be more misleading and sensationalize the data thereby scaring and confusing people.

 

"The 'majority' of co2 increases has come from anthropogenic sources." Haha...hey ipcc how about you provide a quote like

 

"X percent of co2 increases have come from burning fossil fuels." That would actually mean something.

[Dak]

Again, anthropogenic does not mean from burning fossil fuels. And again, the amount from burning fossil fuels matters. Why does the ipcc not have any number like this? I believe it is obvious, because it is far better for the ipcc's position to say that the "majority" (no number still) is from anthropogenic sources.....

 

'majority' means that there is no observed natural events that would account for a significant amount of the recent warming, hence it's 'majourly' anthropogenic.

 

the graph i linked to shows the measured anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the US, with 'burning fossil fules' clearly being the main contributer of CO2 emissions. the next nearest contributes ~50TgCO2Eq... burning fossil fules contributes ~5600TgCO2Eq.

 

Haha, my math is very simple to follow. It involves using the numbers provided now by both you and veedo to demonstrate what % man is responsible for GW.

 

however, you've only looked at a very, very, small part of the data, you're assuming certain relashionships between CO2 (etc) and GW which may not be the case, and you're assuming that the two things that you took into account are the only effects causing GW.

 

the science, as i pointed out, is that man is responsible for virtually all the recent warming.

 

And AGAIN there is a difference in man caused co2 and man caused co2 through burning fossil fuel. The ipcc isn't focusing on the difference and isn't quantifying it, which is mistruthful and misleading. Why would we even enact legislation limiting fossil fuel burning and have ipcc not even focus on how much GW is the result of specifically that???

 

they've stated that GHG (including CO2) are the most probable cause, and that continuing GW will most likely suck.

 

hence, it's up to govournments how to react. given that sucky things are best avoided, and that CO2 is the majour GHG, and most anthropogenic CO2 comes from burning fossil fules, it makes sence to limit fossil fule burning.

 

Note, tho, that other GHGs are also being reduced, such as sulphoxides, and CFCs; stopping deforestation is, logically, another inportant step.

 

However, we have no idea what portion of the 35% increase is due to burning fossil fuels...until anyone can site a number this value can only be assumed.

 

no, i just told you, it's almost all of 35%. this != "no idea" nor "can only assume". it's unlikely to be 12%, for example.

 

yeah, we don't know exactly what amount we've caused, but we do know it's ~35%.

 

15/135 = 11% of the total amount of co2 in the atmosphere is from burning fossil fuels.

 

11% != ~35%.

 

and, look, no matter what you're -- sorry, but -- outright wonky maths says, they're not going to cancel out massive amounts of peer-reviewed research. which, again, states that mankind are responsible for virtually all the recent temperature increase.

 

If something as simple as a few quick calculations could disprove the current consensus on GW, do you not think that some research doctor with a PhD in climatology would have figured it out and published a very small paper that would guarantee him funding for the rest of his life?

 

and i still don't understand you're maths, because there are lots of random '.5' and '.3's in there, along with 'biggest number from unspecified wiki page'

[theCPE]

'majority' means that there is no observed natural events that would account for a significant amount of the recent warming, hence it's 'majourly' anthropogenic.

 

No. That is not what majority means.

 

Majority, and feel free to use google or dictionary.com, means more than half.

 

 

the graph i linked to shows the measured anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the US, with 'burning fossil fules' clearly being the main contributer of CO2 emissions. the next nearest contributes ~50TgCO2Eq... burning fossil fules contributes ~5600TgCO2Eq.

Well use your fancy graph, and divide the amount due to fossil fuels by the total and come back with the % of the 35% that is from fossil fuels.

 

 

the science, as i pointed out, is that man is responsible for virtually all the recent warming.

If this is the case that obviously you should be able to easily demonstrate this with math......

 

 

no, i just told you, it's almost all of 35%. this != "no idea" nor "can only assume". it's unlikely to be 12%, for example.

 

Let me explain the math even more.....

 

current co2 ppm is 377....historically its averaged 280....97/280 = 35% increase in CO2.

 

However, 35% increase in co2 DOES NOT EQUAL 35% of co2 in the atmosphere is from man.

 

If you have 100% of co2 in the atmosphere and then it increases 35% the total co2 in the atmosphere from the 35% increase is 35/135 = 26%.

 

And again, when you provide the numbers of what percentage of that 26% is from fossil fuels ONLY you come up with the amount of co2 that we can eliminate through kyoto and other legislation. I used .5 and .8 since a number hasn't been provided.....which yields the 13% and 20.8% respectively.

 

Those are the percentages of the total atmospheric co2 that comes from burning fossil fuels.

 

 

 

and, look, no matter what you're -- sorry, but -- outright wonky maths says, they're not going to cancel out massive amounts of peer-reviewed research.

Haha, there is nothing wonky about my math, if you can't understand it than obviously you shouldn't have reached any conclusions yet on GW. It is multiplication and the associative property.

 

If something as simple as a few quick calculations could disprove the current consensus on GW, do you not think that some research doctor with a PhD in climatology would have figured it out and published a very small paper that would guarantee him funding for the rest of his life?

It isn't ground breaking, and I imagine the majority of the scientist at ipcc understand the math and know the values. However, the way in which the values are presented suits the goals of the ipcc to phrase it differently.

 

ANd again, this was in the last post, but I continue finding myself repeating stuff.....

 

It suits the ipcc to say X amount of GW is due to man, far more than it suits them to say X amount of GW is due to fossil fuels.

 

 

and i still don't understand you're maths, because there are lots of random '.5' and '.3's in there, along with 'biggest number from unspecified wiki page'

 

Haha, I didn't link wiki someone else did, if you have doubts about wiki's numbers AGAIN provide the numbers you would like me to use.

 

Further, if you can't understand the math than how have you come to a conclusion about this topic. Simple arithmetic is necessary for a person to decide how dire the condition of GW is. But I imagine you didn't think to make your own decision...after all it is far easier to have one handed to you.

[theCPE]

Let me explain this the simpliest way possible.

 

Imagine you have a 10 gallon bucket filled with water!

 

No imagine your buddy BOB has a 20 gallon bucket with 10 gallons of water in it. So it is half full.

 

You tell BOB, "hey, let me pour my water into your bucket!".

 

So you do.

 

Now BOB's bucket has 20 gallons and is full. Your water increased the amount of water in BOB's bucket by 100%, however, your water only accounts for 50% of the total water.

 

10/20 = .5 = 50%

 

If you can't understand that, and then apply that to the co2 in the atmosphere I really don't know what else to say.

[jackson33]

i have all kinds of problem with the suggested CO2 levels over time in accordance to the above charts, primarily since most i have seen, show much higher levels during or before ice ages, than todays.

 

however, as to the total of atmosphere, the increase suggested from 280 to 380 ppm, is equal to an increase of .000001% of the total. if you increase a total of 1 by one you indicate a 100% increase, but increasing 280ppm by 100or to 380ppm, it is meaningless.

 

more likely than not this increase does not reflect the increased plant life alone which has certainly increased. you might conclude that mankind has increased this plant life, indeed it has, but what is put out by fossil fuels burning is trivial. no one, i know of as mentioned the steady state of oxygen which has been constant for a very long time and is used to produce CO2, in decay, burning and breaking process among other. since plant life is the prime source for oxygen i have to assume this item has performed the equalization for nature or done well....

[ParanoiA]

I linked wiki. Because I had a problem with the 97% water vapor number and where it comes from, how it's created. I have since learned that increases in temperature increases water vapor, which further helps increase temperature.

 

From Wiki:

On Earth, the major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone, which causes 3–7%.

 

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

 

You know, from an outsider's point of view, this whole debate looks more like a system that snowballs through various forms of feedback - the only debate being what started what - the chicken or the egg.

 

Rising levels of CO2 trap heat, raising temperature, increasing water vapor, melting glaciers and freeing permafrost, rising sea levels and methane - increasing these symptoms in a snowball effect, feeding each other.

 

A GW advocate would say humans helped raise C02 helping to cause GW, whereas the GW denier says no, water vapor causes GW, to which the advocate says no, rising levels of CO2 would increase temperature which in turn would increase water vapor...and it goes on.

 

It's just interesting how these systems depend and react to each other while we quibble about which system man affected and which system is a reaction to something else. What started what?

 

Edit: After re-reading this, it sounds like I'm trying to lecture the forum on GW - believe me, I am not lecturing this room full of experts on anything! Rather I was trying to recite what I've gathered from this thread and the link Dak provided. Please correct me if I've stated something wrong.

[theCPE]

Rising levels of CO2 trap heat, raising temperature, increasing water vapor, melting glaciers and freeing permafrost, rising sea levels and methane - increasing these symptoms in a snowball effect, feeding each other.

 

If you noticed I included the feedback effects in my math.

 

The math I did is correct. Man is responsible for around 5-7% of GW through use of fossil fuels. And it is important to distinquish between MAN and MAN by way of fossil fuels.

 

After all if we are trying to defend kyoto or create legislation due to data the data needs to clearly be related to the legislation. If the legislation is too alleviate fossil fuel burning, than obviously we need to know how much current fossil fuel burning adds into the GW dynamic. Not how much man in total does, otherwise the gains are wrongly magnified.

 

Whether or not people admit it, IPCC and any other environmental group have motives and agendies. Just like gore has an agenda, he is a large stake holder in the carbon offset company he pushes.

 

Obviously oil companies have an agenda too, but don't you think destorying life and the planet is just as dangerous to them as everyone else? Or will their money they make off of oil somehow save them from catastrophic events.

 

This IMO is what it comes down too. Man by burning fossil fuels does cause GW, in the amount of around 5-7% of the total. Which is probably enough to make the average temperature a little warmer than without man existing. However, it is a far leap to go from that and then to assume we are approaching doom. First, that assumes we will continue to increase our fossil fuel consumption over centuries. Which is not true. We are slowly but surely switching energy sources, the whole time alleviating more and more stress from fossil fuel burning. Second, there I don't believe is anything wrong with setting limits to fossil fuel usage increases, however forcing reductions is another story.

 

It is innapropriate and misleading to sensationalize GW (which IPCC does) in hopes of confusing politicians and laypeople and scaring them. The hopes of course are to force MAJOR funding into alternate energy sources, which obviously is beneficial in the long run. However, forcing research under false pretenses is wrong. Just like the oil scares decades back, when wackos were claiming were had 50 years at most of oil left.....once again same outcome was expected force alternate energy research, by sensationalizing and misleading people.

[jackson33]

just a little side note on personal contributions; maybe i have known 20-25 people who have bought hybrid auto's and a few more a little bitty car to conserve fuel. the one question i have always asked and in this manner...

then of course you took your old car and junked it??? NOT one has ever said yes. then i wonder why your new car and the amounts of GW elements it produces, in addition to what your old car still is producing, has reduced anything???

[Dak]

Well use your fancy graph, and divide the amount due to fossil fuels by the total and come back with the % of the 35% that is from fossil fuels.

 

with rounding off, it'd be 100%

 

as in, virtually all man-made CO2 emissions are from burning fossil fules.

 

feel free to find a source that dissagrees, if you want.

 

If this is the case that obviously you should be able to easily demonstrate this with math......

 

you mean like the way that evolution is true, and so it's easily demonstrated mathematically?

 

just because somethings true, doesn't mean its neccesarily describably with a simple equation.

 

 

blah blah blah, dak is stupid

 

lol, yes, that was a silly error on my part

 

a 35% anthropogenic increase translates as a 25ish% contribution of current CO2 by man.

 

which still isn't 11%

 

And again, when you provide the numbers of what percentage of that 26% is from fossil fuels ONLY you come up with the amount of co2 that we can eliminate through kyoto and other legislation. I used .5 and .8 since a number hasn't been provided.....which yields the 13% and 20.8% respectively.

 

well, from the US emissions, it seems that near enough to 100% is from burning fossil fules.

 

call it 99% if you want

 

Haha, there is nothing wonky about my math, if you can't understand it than obviously you shouldn't have reached any conclusions yet on GW. It is multiplication and the associative property.

 

you have to say what the numbers are, tho

 

rather than doing it yourself, why not find a paper where a scientist has done your very simple maths, and reached the same conclusions?

 

It isn't ground breaking, and I imagine the majority of the scientist at ipcc understand the math and know the values. However, the way in which the values are presented suits the goals of the ipcc to phrase it differently.

 

ANd again, this was in the last post, but I continue finding myself repeating stuff.....

 

It suits the ipcc to say X amount of GW is due to man, far more than it suits them to say X amount of GW is due to fossil fuels.

 

but it doesn't suit science as a whole either way, and the IPCC accurately represented the scientific consensus (see the link to a peer-reviewed article supporting this last time i said it). not to mention the vast number of other institutes who support the IPCC view (unsurprisingly, as it's the scientific consensus; again, see the last wp link i gave)

 

Further, if you can't understand the math than how have you come to a conclusion about this topic. Simple arithmetic is necessary for a person to decide how dire the condition of GW is. But I imagine you didn't think to make your own decision...after all it is far easier to have one handed to you.

 

no. the maths is anything other than simple. it's not CO2 levels*constant = scale of doom we face. it's very, very, complicated.

 

I don't claim to be able to fully understand the maths involved, and i doubt more than a few people on this board could.

 

look at it like this:

 

thousands of scientists operating within the peer-review system, examining crap-loads of data, and after years of research, think the recent anomolous warming is due to man.

 

neither you nor me are going to be able to come up with an answre better than that. acknowledging this fact isn't lazyness of thought on my part, it's modesty. i.e., i'm not of the impression that i can out-think all those scientists with a fraction of the effort and data

 

you seem to think that you can. so, again: do you actually have a peer-reviewed article that backs up what you're saying?

 

 

The math I did is correct. Man is responsible for around 5-7% of GW through use of fossil fuels. And it is important to distinquish between MAN and MAN by way of fossil fuels.

 

source? if you can't find one, don't say it again.

 

again, this is a science site. you can't just go 'hey, these unsuported numbers disprove the peer-reviewed science'