Global Warming explained - "inconvenient" or otherwise!

[KLB]

Hell i'll make it really easy for you to point out the paradox......

 

76-90% of GW is due to water vapor according to wiki and GW proponents.

9-24% of GW is due to CO2 according to wiki and GW proponents.

 

How about providing some peer reviewed citations?

 

Do you understand what those numbers mean? They mean that all the water vapor traps about 76-90% of infrared radiation from escaping. Same with the CO2 number....make sense?

Again you need to provide reputable citations (Wiki does not count as reputable). However, with that said our planet does depend upon a certain percentage of the sun's heat energy being locked down by our atmosphere in order to maintain a habitable climate. If you ever want to see what life is like if the heat is not reflected down to earth, go to the middle of a desert at night or the arctic in the winter on a cloudless night (lets just say it is wicked cold). With that said if too much is heat is reflected back to earth things get wicked hot.

 

Man has increased CO2 ppm from a historical average of 280 to 377. That is an increase of 97 divided by 280 = 35% increase in co2 in the atmosphere. Any paradox here?

 

That means that 35/135 = 26% of the total CO2 is from man. Any paradox yet?

Even if your math is correct, I'm not convinced of the logic to draw your formula or that you used the base numbers correctly.

 

According to veedo and his stats from ipcc I am assuming, 3C temperature increase causes a 20% feedback increase in water vapor.

So you are basing your number on numbers and stats posted here without verifying their source? How about building a mathematical model based on peer reviewed numbers and providing specific citations for the rest of us to confirm. Make sure that when you grab different numbers that you are comparing apples to apples so to speak.

 

There has been a .6C increase in temperature.

over what time frame again provide citations.

 

.6/3 gives you the percentage of the 20% water vapor increase due to temperature. = 4%

 

4/104 = 3.8% Of all the water vapor in the atmosphere is due to man.

 

Any paradox or illogic yet?

I've seen proofs that showed 1+1=3, it doesn't mean it is true. What I see is a bunch of numbers being thrown together from multiple sources to draw a conclusion. On the surface it sounds good, but I think the term bascule used for it was non-sequitur (see: http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Anon-sequitur). This is the problem with many GW skeptical arguments.

 

I once again eagerly await this paradox to be pointed out.

If you jump through enough mathematical equations you can convince yourself of anything. All I see is a bunch of mental gymnastics based on dubious numbers that appears designed to confuse more than inform.

[Dak]

ok, i think i see what you're getting at now.

 

76-90% of GW is due to water vapor according to wiki and GW proponents.

9-24% of GW is due to CO2 according to wiki and GW proponents.

 

Do you understand what those numbers mean? They mean that all the water vapor traps about 76-90% of infrared radiation from escaping. Same with the CO2 number....make sense?

 

i'm going to assume for this post that those numbers are correct.

 

note, tho, that this doesnt' neccesarily mean that 100% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of 9-24% of GW. GW, remember, is the recent 'increase' in temperature, not all the temperature. im pretty sure it basically means the extra CO2 is the cause of 9-24% of the extra temperature. tho, as you havent given a link, i can't check.

 

Man has increased CO2 ppm from a historical average of 280 to 377. That is an increase of 97 divided by 280 = 35% increase in co2 in the atmosphere.

 

That means that 35/135 = 26% of the total CO2 is from man.

 

I'm not sure what the 35/135 is all about, and it still seems paradoxical.

 

man has caused a 35% increase in atmospheric CO2.

divided 35 by 135 = man has caused a 26% increase in CO2.

 

how do you derive a 26% anthropogenic increase in CO2 from the observation that there is a 35% anthropogenic increase in CO2?

 

temporarily accepting 26% for the sake of discussion, note that it's just this 26% of the CO2 that's been contributing to GW. i.e., it's just the increase in CO2 that has caused an increase in temperature; the CO2 that was allready there is not causing an increase (as it will already have contributed to the temperature that was allready there), if that makes sence?

 

 

According to veedo and his stats from ipcc I am assuming, 3C temperature increase causes a 20% feedback increase in water vapor.

 

just going on what you said, that is unlikely to be linear. e.g., if 3C = 20% inc [H2O], it doesn't neccesarily follow that 1.5C = 10% inc [H2O]. also, it's regressive(?), by which i mean the increase in temperature will cause extra atmospheric H2O, which will increase temperature (as its a GHG), which will raise temperature, causing more H2O, etc etc. making this:

 

.6/3 gives you the percentage of the 20% water vapor increase due to temperature. = 4%

 

wrong. the 0.6C increase will have caused some extra H2O, which will have increased the temperature, which will increase H2O (etc).

 

the way you are stating it would imply that the temperature increases, which then causes H2O, which then has no effect.

 

you are assuming 3C correlates to 20%H2O, whereas you stated causes; you are also assuming a linear relationship.

 

4/104 = 3.8% Of all the water vapor in the atmosphere is due to man.

 

You do realise that this implies that 100% of the 0.6C increase in temperature was due to man?

 

even if it's true, again remember that GW is an 'increase' in temperature caused mainly by an 'increase' in GHGs. so, saying that only 3.8% of the atmospheric H2O is caused by man means little; all it means is that the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric H2O is 3.8%, and it is this 3.8% that causes H2Os contribution to the recent increase in temperature.

 

So .76 (water vapor) * .038 = 2.8%

And .24 (co2) * .26 = 6%

 

2.8+6 ~ 9% of the total effect from GHGs is from man.

 

if your assumptions are correct (which is doubtful), if the relationships are linear (which they're not), and if youve accounted for everything (which you havent), and if you can explain the oddity whereby 35% becomes 26%, then yes, the above is correct.

 

an alternative way of looking at it (assuming these stats are correct):

 

9-24% of GW is from the extra CO2

~100% of the extra CO2 is from man.

 

therefore, taking only CO2 into account, man is responsible for ~1*(9 to 24%) = between roughly 9 and 24% of GW by extra CO2 alone, without considering knockon effects (eg, the extra CO2 causing extra temperature causing extra H2O causing more extra temperature, etc)

[theCPE]

How about providing some peer reviewed citations?

Thus numbers aren't mine, they were all provided by others in the ipcc fan club.

 

Even if your math is correct, I'm not convinced of the logic to draw your formula or that you used the base numbers correctly.

It really isn't a formula. It is no different than if you are at the grocery store and you are buying two things and you want to account for how much of your total money comes from which item......

 

How about building a mathematical model based on peer reviewed numbers and providing specific citations for the rest of us to confirm. Make sure that when you grab different numbers that you are comparing apples to apples so to speak.

The people citing the numbers were citing them from ipcc and other sources, why would I re-cite their citation/

 

I've seen proofs that showed 1+1=3, it doesn't mean it is true. What I see is a bunch of numbers being thrown together from multiple sources to draw a conclusion.

 

Yeh, ive seen those cute little proofs too, they invovle limits, and other 'tricky' math. This is multiplication.

 

If you jump through enough mathematical equations you can convince yourself of anything. All I see is a bunch of mental gymnastics based on dubious numbers that appears designed to confuse more than inform.

Haha, more of the same. None of you can point out any flaws in the actual math so instead you just say "i don't agree because it seems wonky or dubious to me"

 

Its pretty funny.

[KLB]

Dak, now that you were able to jump through his mathematical gymnastics, I'd advise you to take some aspirin for your headache.

 

All kidding aside, you did a better job of following the bouncing ball then I was able to do (I tried but it made my head spin). I now see what theCPE was trying to "prove" and why the logic was so flawed.

[KLB]

Thus numbers aren't mine, they were all provided by others in the ipcc fan club.

A bad place to start is with unverified numbers, regardless of the source. When it comes to the numbers I don't think anyone has a monopoly on accuracy with their numbers in this thread. Instead I see a lot of sloppy numbers cast about and then reused to make an argument, which results in more sloppy numbers. All any of this proves is that people are sloppy with their use of numbers.

 

The people citing the numbers were citing them from ipcc and other sources, why would I re-cite their citation/

Oh I don't know, maybe to make sure you were making your arguments based on a sound foundation maybe?

 

I assume your purpose in debating GW is to disprove man being the culprit. To do this you need to be using sound data otherwise your argument falls apart the moment someone like DAK decodes your math.

 

Yeh, ive seen those cute little proofs too, they invovle limits, and other 'tricky' math. This is multiplication.

based on "tricky" numbers of dubious reliability (unverified numbers by other members).

[theCPE]

i'm going to assume for this post that those numbers are correct.

Well they are GW proponent numbers so if anything they should be acceptable to that crowd right?

 

GW, remember, is the recent 'increase' in temperature, not all the temperature.

See that is where you are wrong and getting confused. Please visit the EPA website for a definition and description of GW.

 

GW is the culmination of all processes whether man or natural that create greenhouse gases that help warm our planet. These GHGs are NECESSARY for life.

I'm not sure what the 35/135 is all about, and it still seems paradoxical.

See, like I said, you not understanding doesn't make it a paradox. I will explain the math. I did earlier for someone else.

 

If you have a bucket with 10 gallons of water and bob has a bucket with 10 gallons of water and the two of you combine your water into one bucket of 20 gallons, YOUR water increased bob's water by 100%, however your water accounts for only 50% of all the water. Hence 10/20 = .5 Apply that too the co2 increase and total co2.

 

man has caused a 35% increase in atmospheric CO2.

divided 35 by 135 = man has caused a 26% increase in CO2.

No, reread my words, man is responsible for 26% of CO2 in the atmosphere...not 26% increase......

 

 

note that it's just this 26% of the CO2 that's been contributing to GW. i.e., it's just the increase in CO2 that has caused an increase in temperature; the CO2 that was allready there is not causing an increase (as it will already have contributed to the temperature that was allready there), if that makes sence?

No, every day the planet is warmed and every night the planet cools somewhat. The process of warming is GW. The 26% of co2 in the atmosphere due to man is only a part of the co2 in the atmosphere that blocks escaping infrared radiation and thus warms the planet.

 

 

just going on what you said, that is unlikely to be linear. e.g., if 3C = 20% inc [H2O], it doesn't neccesarily follow that 1.5C = 10% inc [H2O]. also, it's regressive(?), by which i mean the increase in temperature will cause extra atmospheric H2O, which will increase temperature (as its a GHG), which will raise temperature, causing more H2O, etc etc. making this:

Your right, it isn't necessarily linear, however remember I said this isn't accurate to 20 decimal places, this is to produce a jist of what man contributes. Given though that the increase in temperature of .6 is far from 3 the possibility for error is fairly small in the 4%.

 

Now, here is where you stumble again. You are saying that the increase in water vapor then increases the temperature again which increases water vapor again...you realize you are suggesting an undamped system which would quickly escalate to infinity......

 

The .6C warmer has already occured and is measured....during this warming water vapor was being introduced accumulating to about 4%. You get it?

 

 

wrong. the 0.6C increase will have caused some extra H2O, which will have increased the temperature, which will increase H2O (etc).

No, read the above.

 

the way you are stating it would imply that the temperature increases, which then causes H2O, which then has no effect.

No.....the h2o that was introduced was causing warming as it was being introduced and the warming it caused was accounted for in the .6C which is currently measured.......

 

You do realise that this implies that 100% of the 0.6C increase in temperature was due to man?

That is only because I assumed (for purpose of demonstrating the totality of man's contributions to GW) that ALL co2 increases have been due to man. And it actually only suggests man has caused 90%.

 

 

9-24% of GW is from the extra CO2

Again, no!

 

All co2 in the atmosphere blocks infrared radiation.....not just extra co2 over the last century.

 

~100% of the extra CO2 is from man.

Citation, as klb would say:)

 

therefore, taking only CO2 into account, man is responsible for ~1*(9 to 24%) = between roughly 9 and 24% of GW by extra CO2 alone, without considering knockon effects (eg, the extra CO2 causing extra temperature causing extra H2O causing more extra temperature, etc)

No again. Same reason as above. "Extra" co2 doesn't cause radiation blockage, all Co2 does.....

[theCPE]

I now see what theCPE was trying to "prove" and why the logic was so flawed.

It isn't as once again I have shown both you and dak.

[theCPE]

I assume your purpose in debating GW is to disprove man being the culprit. To do this you need to be using sound data otherwise your argument falls apart the moment someone like DAK decodes your math.

Before you give dak to large a pat on the back, maybe you should be sure he is correct with the math...which he still isn't.

 

Further, I am not trying to disprove man contributes to GW, I am merely showing what amount he does and how ipcc misleads people by wording things very cleverly.

[KLB]

It isn't as once again I have both you and dak.

 

Until you build a mathematical "model" or argument that starts on sound numbers and cited reasoning for the correlations you want to make, you have no one but yourself.

[theCPE]

It really is a shame that you can't point out anything wrong with my logic or math (at least correctly) and so even after I used numbers provided by you or other GW proponents all you can still say is "omg citations omg citations omg"

 

Its a joke.

[KLB]

how ipcc misleads people by wording things very cleverly.

Are you saying you question the integrity of thousands of scientists and one of the most stringent peer review processes ever undertaken in scientific endeavors? I believe skepticlance took exception to me doing this when I called into question the actions of ExxonMobil and its proxies.

 

If I can not question the motives and methods of ExxonMobil and the climate change skeptics they funded through proxies then you can not call into question the motives or integrity of the IPCC. In turn we MUST accept the conclusions of the IPCC's reports as fact as they been through a rigorous peer review process.

[theCPE]

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

 

http://www.uic.com.au/nip24.htm

(this source excludes water vapor...I wonder why, thus co2 being responsible for 60%)

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming_2.html

(national geographic citing findings of the supercharged effect water vapor has on GW)

 

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

 

 

 

 

1. ^ a b c d e f g h Summary for Policymakers (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007-02-05). Retrieved on 2007-02-02.

2. ^ American Quaternary Association (2006-09-05). "Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (PDF). Eos 87: 364. “[AAPG] stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.”

3. ^ Climate Change Policy (cfm). American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Retrieved on 2007-03-30.

4. ^ American Quaternary Association (2006-09-05). "Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (PDF). Eos 87: 364. “Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.”

5. ^ Climate Change: Basic Information. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2006-12-14). Retrieved on 2007-02-09. “In common usage, 'global warming' often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.”

6. ^ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article I. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-01-15.

7. ^ Joint science academies' statement: The science of climate change (ASP). Royal Society (2001-05-17). Retrieved on 2007-04-01. “The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science”

8. ^ Leidig, Michael; Nikkhah, Roya (2004-07-17). The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame. Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved on 2007-04-29.

9. ^ Meehl, Gerald A.; et al. (2005-03-18). "How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise". Science 307 (5716): 1769–1772. DOI:10.1126/science.1106663. Retrieved on 2007-02-11.

10. ^ (December 2002). "Living with Climate Change – An Overview of Potential Climate Change Impacts on Australia. Summary and Outlook" (PDF). Australian Greenhouse Office. Retrieved on 2007-04-18.

11. ^ Pearson, Paul N.; Palmer, Martin R. (2000-08-17). "Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years". Nature 406 (6797): 695-699. DOI:10.1038/35021000.

12. ^ Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001-01-20). Retrieved on 2007-01-18.

13. ^ Tans, Pieter. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide – Mauna Loa. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved on 2007-04-28.

14. ^ Prentice, I. Colin; et al. (2001-01-20). 3.7.3.3 SRES scenarios and their implications for future CO2 concentration. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-04-28.

15. ^ 4.4.6. Resource Availability. IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-04-28.

16. ^ Sample, Ian. "Warming Hits 'Tipping Point'", The Guardian, 2005-08-11. Retrieved on 2007-01-18.

17. ^ a b Soden, Brian J.; Held, Isacc M. (2005-11-01). "An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Models" (PDF). Journal of Climate 19 (14). Retrieved on 2007-04-21. “Interestingly, the true feedback is consistently weaker than the constant relative humidity value, implying a small but robust reduction in relative humidity in all models on average" "clouds appear to provide a positive feedback in all models”

18. ^ Stocker, Thomas F.; et al. (2001-01-20). 7.5.2 Sea Ice. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-02-11.

19. ^ Marsh, Nigel; Henrik, Svensmark (November 2000). "Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate" (PDF). Space Science Reviews 94: 215-230. DOI:10.1023/A:1026723423896. Retrieved on 2007-04-17.

20. ^ Climate Change 2001:Working Group I: The Scientific Basis (Fig. 2.12) (2001). Retrieved on 2007-05-08.

21. ^ Scafetta, Nicola; West, Bruce J. (2006-03-09). "Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming" (PDF). Geophysical Research Letters 33 (5). DOI:10.1029/2005GL025539. L05708. Retrieved on 2007-05-08.

22. ^ Stott, Peter A.; et al. (2003-12-03). "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?". Journal of Climate 16 (24): 4079–4093. DOI:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016%3C4079:DMUTSC%3E2.0.CO;2. Retrieved on 2007-04-16.

23. ^ Smith, Thomas M.; Reynolds, Richard W. (2005-05-15). "A Global Merged Land–Air–Sea Surface Temperature Reconstruction Based on Historical Observations (1880–1997)" (PDF). Journal of Climate 18 (12): 2021-2036. ISSN 0894-8755. Retrieved on 2007-03-14.

24. ^ Hansen, James E.; et al. (2006-01-12). Goddard Institute for Space Studies, GISS Surface Temperature Analysis. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Retrieved on 2007-01-17.

25. ^ Global Temperature for 2005: second warmest year on record (PDF). Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia (2005-12-15). Retrieved on 2007-04-13.

26. ^ WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 2005 (PDF). World Meteorological Organization (2005-12-15). Retrieved on 2007-04-13.

27. ^ Mitchell, J. F. B.; et al. (2001-01-20). 12.4.3.3 Space-time studies. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-01-04.

28. ^ Ruddiman, William F. (March 2005). "How Did Humans First Alter Global Climate?" (PDF). Scientific American 292 (3): 46-53. Retrieved on 2007-03-05.

29. ^ Schmidt, Gavin; et al. (2004-12-10). "A note on the relationship between ice core methane concentrations and insolation". Geophysical Research Letters 31 (23). DOI:10.1029/2004GL021083. L23206. Retrieved on 2007-03-05.

30. ^ Hansen, James; et al. (2006-09-26). "Global temperature change" (PDF). PNAS 103: 14288-14293. Retrieved on 2007-04-20.

31. ^ Open University (2004-01-30). The Open University Provides Answers on Global Warming (PDF). Press release. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.

32. ^ Cohen, Anthony S.; et al. (February 2004). "Osmium isotope evidence for the regulation of atmospheric CO2 by continental weathering" (PDF). Geology 32 (2): 157-160. DOI:10.1130/G20158.1. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.

33. ^ Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001-01-20). Retrieved on 2007-04-28.

34. ^ Torn, Margaret; Harte, John (2006-05-26). "Missing feedbacks, asymmetric uncertainties, and the underestimation of future warming". Geophysical Research Letters 33 (10). L10703. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.

35. ^ Harte, John; et al. (2006-10-30). "Shifts in plant dominance control carbon-cycle responses to experimental warming and widespread drought". Environmental Research Letters 1 (1). 014001. Retrieved on 2007-05-02.

36. ^ Scheffer, Marten; et al. (2006-05-26). "Positive feedback between global warming and atmospheric CO2 concentration inferred from past climate change.". Geophysical Research Letters 33. DOI:10.1029/2005gl025044. Retrieved on 2007-05-04.

37. ^ Stocker, Thomas F.; et al. (2001-01-20). 7.2.2 Cloud Processes and Feedbacks. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.

38. ^ a b Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001-02-16). Retrieved on 2007-03-14.

39. ^ a b Summary for Policymakers (PDF). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007-04-13). Retrieved on 2007-04-28.

40. ^ Church, John A.; et al. (2001-01-20). Executive Summary of Chapter 11. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2005-12-19.

41. ^ Thomas, Chris D.; et al. (2004-01-08). "Extinction risk from climate change" (PDF). Nature 427 (6970): 145-138. DOI:10.1038/nature02121. Retrieved on 2007-03-18.

42. ^ a b McLaughlin, John F.; et al. (2002-04-30). "Climate change hastens population extinctions" (PDF). PNAS 99 (9): 6070-6074. DOI:10.1073/pnas.052131199. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.

43. ^ Permesan, Camille (2006-08-24). "Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change" (PDF). Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37: 637-669. DOI:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110100. Retrieved on 2007-03-30.

44. ^ At-a-glance: The Stern Review. BBC (2006-10-30). Retrieved on 2007-04-29.

45. ^ Tackling climate change. A bargain. The Economist (2007-05-04). Retrieved on 2007-05-04.

46. ^ Dlugolecki, Andrew; et al. (2002). Climate Risk to Global Economy (PDF). CEO Briefing: UNEP FI Climate Change Working Group. United Nations Environment Programme. Retrieved on 2007-04-29.

47. ^ Kyoto Protocol Status of Ratification (PDF). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2006-07-10). Retrieved on 2007-04-27.

48. ^ Revkin, Andrew. "Poor Nations to Bear Brunt as World Warms", The New York Times, 2007-04-01. Retrieved on 2007-05-02.

49. ^ Brahic, Catherine (2006-04-25). China's emissions may surpass the US in 2007. New Scientist. Retrieved on 2007-05-02.

50. ^ Crampton, Thomas. "More in Europe worry about climate than in U.S., poll shows", International Herald Tribune, 2007-01-04. Retrieved on 2007-04-14.

51. ^ Summary of Findings. Little Consensus on Global Warming. Partisanship Drives Opinion. Pew Research Center (2006-07-12). Retrieved on 2007-04-14.

52. ^ "Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics", MSNBC, 2007-01-12. Retrieved on 2007-05-02.

53. ^ Sandell, Clayton. "Report: Big Money Confusing Public on Global Warming", ABC, 2007-01-03. Retrieved on 2007-04-27.

54. ^ Holzer, Jessica. "Global warming becomes hot topic on Capitol Hill", The Hill, 2007-01-18. Retrieved on 2007-05-02.

55. ^ Zabarenko, Deborah. "U.S. rejects 'high cost' global warming scenarios", Reuters, 2007-05-04. Retrieved on 2007-05-04.

56. ^ "EU agrees on carbon dioxide cuts", BCC, 2007-03-09. Retrieved on 2007-05-04.

57. ^ Angleys, Emmanuel. "China, India, Brazil hold up climate change talks", Agence France-Presse, 2007-05-02. Retrieved on 2007-05-02.

58. ^ "U.S. Population 300,888,812 for Jan. 1", Red Orbit, 2006-12-28. Retrieved on 2007-05-03.

59. ^ The Ocean and the Carbon Cycle. NASA (2005-06-21). Retrieved on 2007-03-04.

60. ^ Jacobson, Mark Z. (2005-04-02). "Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry" (PDF). Journal of Geophysical Research 110 (D7). DOI:10.1029/2004JD005220. D07302. Retrieved on 2007-04-28.

61. ^ Caldeira, Ken; Wickett, Michael E. (2005-09-21). "Ocean model predictions of chemistry changes from carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and ocean". Journal of Geophysical Research 110 (C09S04): 1-12. Retrieved on 2006-02-14.

62. ^ Raven, John A.; et al. (2005-06-30). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide" (ASP). Royal Society. Retrieved on 2007-05-04.

 

There is a list of references I found for citing GW contributions by green house gases, as well as the list of resources cited by wikipedia which interestingly enough includes your covated IPCC as a resource.

 

 

BTW, of course exxon and oil companies have motives, just like the ipcc does. Oil wants people not to be limited in how much they buy, ipcc wants funding to be forced into alternate energy research....its pretty simple.

 

There are the citations.

[KLB]

It really is a shame that you can't point out anything wrong with my logic or math (at least correctly) and so even after I used numbers provided by you or other GW proponents all you can still say is "omg citations omg citations omg"

 

Its a joke.

 

You had better remove the word "you" from your comment "numbers provided by you or other GW proponents" because you have not used ANY numbers provided by me. I take strong issue with ANY use of uncited numbers because they only lead to false conclusions (as you have made).

 

If you can not build your argument on citations of peer reviewed research then you have no argument to make. There is no reason anyone should waste energy disproving an argument in a science forum like this that is not based upon peer reviewed sources to begin with. It is a waste of time.

 

--edit--

So you copied and pasted a big bibliography from some paper. It does not help support your argument. You need to form your argument such that each step of your logic is referenced back to something that can be validated. At this point in time you can not do that because you have freely admitted that you relied on numbers from this thread.

[theCPE]

--edit--

So you copied and pasted a big bibliography from some paper. It does not help support your argument. You need to form your argument such that each step of your logic is referenced back to something that can be validated. At this point in time you can not do that because you have freely admitted that you relied on numbers from this thread.

 

Haha, I am so through with you.

 

I've played your little game of "well your math is wrong because of X, now Y, now Z" long enough.

 

If you are too stubborn and naive to understand my simple point that is your problem.

 

Debating this with you is pretty much a waste of time, either because you don't understand simple math and logic or because you are intentionally stubborn and ignoring opposition to your fragile understanding of GW.

 

Have fun.

[Dak]

GW is the culmination of all processes whether man or natural that create greenhouse gases that help warm our planet. These GHGs are NECESSARY for life.

 

yes, i know. but when people say GW, they don't mean the fact that the globe is warm. they mean the fact that it's getting hotter, and the amount by which it's getting hotter.

 

irreguardless, i dont know what your initial figures actually refer to as you won't provide a source.

 

No, reread my words, man is responsible for 26% of CO2 in the atmosphere...not 26% increase......

 

with you now. but, again assuming the figures are correct, I'm pretty sure that 26% increase is what's responsable for 24% of GW, as opposed to 100% of the CO2 is responsible for 24% of the warming.

 

by your logic, the 74% that is non-man-made is contributing to 74% of 24% of GW. however, this 74% was there before, and there was no GW. see what i'm saying?

 

GW is most likely the result of an increase in atmospheric CO2. the fact that the 'extra' CO2 accounts for 24% doesn't mean that the extra CO2 only causes 24% of GW.

 

unless the initial figures meant otherwize. a citation would help. hint, hint.

 

Your right, it isn't necessarily linear, however remember I said this isn't accurate to 20 decimal places, this is to produce a jist of what man contributes.

 

no. assuming a non-linear relationship where none exists does not make you 'a bit off', it makes you completely wrong.

 

it invalidates your entire calculation.

 

Now, here is where you stumble again. You are saying that the increase in water vapor then increases the temperature again which increases water vapor again...you realize you are suggesting an undamped system which would quickly escalate to infinity......

 

 

no i'm not, as each incriment is a % of the last, i.e. smaller. this makes it finite before it equilibriates. but it does mean that it has to be taken into account, as the effect can be larger than it seems like it should.

 

eg, if x causes 0.5y and y causes 0.5x, then what you did was this:

 

we have 1x, which causes 0.5y, so we have 1x+0.5y.

 

however, that 0.5y causes 0.25x, which causes 0.125y, which causes 0.0625x etc. added up, they approach, but never reach, roughly 1.5x+0.7y.

 

this is significantly different from 'infinitely esculating' and also from 1x+0.5y

 

this (is one of many things that) stops your '3C = 20% H2O increase, therefore 0.6C = 3/0.6*20% increase' being correct.

 

All co2 in the atmosphere blocks infrared radiation.....not just extra co2 over the last century.

 

yes, but, not 100% of the current temperature is caused by the excess CO2. the temperature that was already here is not an issue: it's the extra temperature.

 

again, i'd appreciate a citation of the initial figures so i can figure out what you're exactly on about.

 

Citation, as klb would say:)

certainly

 

btw, as i'm sure you know, 'provide a citation' does not mean provide a list of random citations.

 

 

 

No again. Same reason as above. "Extra" co2 doesn't cause radiation blockage, all Co2 does.....

 

extra. CO2. causes. extra. radiation. blockage. causes. extra. temperature.

 

don't bother arguing, just give me a citation for the initial figures.

 

It really isn't a formula. It is no different than if you are at the grocery store and you are buying two things and you want to account for how much of your total money comes from which item......

 

this is really the crux of your problem. the climate does not behave as simply as that. go read the last link i provided to just one small and very complicated aspect of climatology.

 

look, theres little point in going into your calculation in this great a depth. to invalidate it, it's enough to more-or-less say 'its not that simple' (not linear, for a start). i'm just trying to explain to you why it's not that simple.

[theCPE]

yes, i know. but when people say GW, they don't mean the fact that the globe is warm. they mean the fact that it's getting hotter, and the amount by which it's getting hotter.

Well than the clarity of the statement needs to be made. Because as I have shown GW and recent temperature increases are not equivalent terms.

 

irreguardless, i dont know what your initial figures actually refer to as you won't provide a source.

I received my numbers from wikipedia, whom lists 65 sources one of which is the beloved ipcc. Further, the other listed links are other sources such as nasa, national geographic etc, where similar numbers for GW contributions are provided.

 

with you now. but, again assuming the figures are correct, I'm pretty sure that 26% increase is what's responsable for 24% of GW, as opposed to 100% of the CO2 is responsible for 24% of the warming.

Think, warming is caused by infrared radiation not escaping into the atmosphere. All co2 causes this blockage, not just a handful of it. Understand? And remember you can't point out these gases caused this degree, and these gases caused this degree increase, it is a culmination of ghgs causing the effect of warming.

 

by your logic, the 74% that is non-man-made is contributing to 74% of 24% of GW. however, this 74% was there before, and there was no GW. see what i'm saying?

Not really.

 

GW is most likely the result of an increase in atmospheric CO2. the fact that the 'extra' CO2 accounts for 24% doesn't mean that the extra CO2 only causes 24% of GW.

Your right, all co2 causes 24% of GW.

 

no. assuming a non-linear relationship where none exists does not make you 'a bit off', it makes you completely wrong.

Not true, even if exponential. The initial part of the curve (where .6 would be) is actually less than linear. Ever used linear approximations on graphs?

 

it invalidates your entire calculation.

haha, not at all. Because if anything we know that more than 20% increase hasn't occured in water vapor. Which puts a ceiling on the contributions of man.

 

eg, if x causes 0.5y and y causes 0.5x, then what you did was this:

 

we have 1x, which causes 0.5y, so we have 1x+0.5y.

 

however, that 0.5y causes 0.25x, which causes 0.125y, which causes 0.0625x etc. added up, they approach, but never reach, roughly 1.5x+0.7y.

 

this is significantly different from 'infinitely esculating' and also from 1x+0.5y

 

No. You are missing the point. The temperature increase from the increased water vapor has already been included within the .6C measurement!

 

You can't say that the water vapor increase then causes more temperature increase, because that has already been accounted for in the measured .6C!!!

 

IF Someone said .4C was due to co2 additions but due to water vapor feedback, the total temperature increase was more than .4C THEN you could incrementally break down temperature increase due to the feedback.

 

Do you see???? The .6C is measured NOW, and it includes all temperature increases, thus the TOTAL feedback result from the TOTAL temperature feedback can be calculated.

 

 

yes, but, not 100% of the current temperature is caused by the excess CO2. the temperature that was already here is not an issue: it's the extra temperature.

Extra temperature? That is poor terminology, increase in temperature is much better. And the assumption that man has caused 90% of the temperature increases in the past century came from someone either quoting ipcc or misquoting ipcc.

 

 

look, theres little point in going into your calculation in this great a depth. to invalidate it, it's enough to more-or-less say 'its not that simple' (not linear, for a start). i'm just trying to explain to you why it's not that simple.

 

And again, things are simple, if understood properly they can be incrementally digested and understood in simple increments. Whenver someone suggests something is complex they probably don't completely understand it themselves.

[theCPE]

Oh and btw your citation "Beyond the Ivory towers" says that increased ghg are probably responsible but no where in that article does it say "majority from man"

 

And also the article did what others were doing earlier, it bases conclusiveness on the percentage of articles for and agaisnt GW.....hardly scientific.

[1veedo]

A new oceanic current pattern, which is said to help make computer models more accurate. Obviously, without this knowledge, the models are less accurate, which has been the case up to the present. So what else remains to be discovered, which is needed to make models accurate? Lots I suspect.

This is an argument from ignorance.

And this is absolutely true. The complexity is beyond any human mind, and is STILL beyond the capacity of computer models to cope with.

Then can you please explain why these computer models are so exceedingly accurate? Eg the original NASA GISS simulation back in the 80s that is, still today, "right on the money" (actual quote from NASA)*.

The current situation is that for 30 years CO2 increase and warming correlate well. Before that, things were different.

This is a false cause and is therefore a rather unreliable method to infer causation -- correlation does not imply causation.

No, I never suggested any rules or dynamics of GW. I used the rules and dynamics provided by others in your corner. The rules for how much certain gases contribute, the rules for how much man contributes of those gases, and the rules of how temperature increases causes feedback which increases other gases. I didn't suggest those rules, I didn't create those rules, I didn't pull those rules out of a hat, I simply applied THEM which came FROM your 'associates' to demonstrate that according to ipcc's own rules they are sensationalizing GW.

Do you not realize what you're doing? You're doing exactly what Bascule said -- applying linear functions and ignoring feedback loops with simple rules that do not work out that way in reality.

If you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it yourself.

It has been explained, many times, in simple terms. You're just trying to turn it into something that it's not, which implies you don't understand what's going on.

 

So here you go: Rising anthropogenic -- manmade -- greenhouse gases, like CO2, are causing the Earth's temperature to rise at a very rapid and alarming rate. It's really not all that difficult to understand IMO.

Just like relativity, sounds like some really complex ideas (and I suppose it is) however, with the proper person explaining it with the proper analysis and illustrations it too can be broken into managiable peices and digested.

Pick up a physics book and look at what the equations tell you -- it's really not all that difficult to understand. I don't know why people always make a big deal about relativity and Einstein. It might take a genius to come up with the idea but it's really not all that difficult to understand, as long as you know one formula: y=(sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2))^-1. Now quantum and atomic physics -- that's a whole different ballgame.

Which I have CONTINUED to explain means, man helped produce .5C change in temperature, not that man is responsible for 90% of the total GW process.

Ok so you're just redefining what global warming is. In that case this is a straw man -- nobody is saying that humans are responsible for the 50C extra degrees on this planet because of our atmosphere. What scientists are saying is that the rise in temperatures -- above this 50C -- is primarily caused by humans. Out of the .6C increase in temperature sense 1975, humans are responsible for .54C, or .5 if you round down. At this point I think you'd be agreeing with us.

thats why GW predictions often show multiple possibilities' date=' predicted by multiple models, and nothing is taken for granted unless all models indicate that it's probably going to happen.

[/quote']Actually the reason climate models do this is because it's fairly difficult to predict future anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. So what they do is create a range estimate with the lower bound being Xmin amount of greenhouse gas emissions, land clearing, black pollution on tundra, etc, and the upper bound being Xmax amount of these activities. And hopefully the middle estimate is most accurate.

It really is a shame that you can't point out anything wrong with my logic or math (at least correctly) and so even after I used numbers provided by you or other GW proponents all you can still say is "omg citations omg citations omg"

 

Its a joke.

I proved your arguments wrong a long time ago and you never addressed my concerns. The biggest error that you're making is assuming that water vapor is entirely natural when in reality rising CO2 levels cause the amount of water stored in the atmosphere to increase. You're trying to make a false dilemma -- either CO2 or water vapor' date=' and nothing else, when in reality they aren't related in that way. They work through feedback processes to effect other factors in the climate -- they aren't always separated linearly like this.

 

I don't know how many times I have to tell you this because you just keep ignoring it. Reason? Probably because you don't like the fact that it makes your premises invalid. You're trying to find simple rules to govern the climate but it just doesn't work like this. There are many things that you are overlooking in your calculations -- for instance the effect of the ice-water feedback where melting ice causes temperatures to rise, which causes more ice to melt, causing temperatures to rise even more, etc, or the effects of black pollution on tundra that absorbs heat from the sun in locations where energy used to be reflected back into space.

 

All of these different factors contribute a very important number called a radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is a measure of the change in energy from the sun on this planet -- through feedback loops this figure can either increase or decrease the total amount of energy on this planet which then effects the temperature of the planet. CO2 has an RF value of 1.66w/m^2 and it is the highest out of any other factor on the planet -- the runner up is CH4(also anthropogenic) with .48w/m^2. The sun contributes .12w/m^2 extra. Some human activities have negative values, like particulate pollution from aerosols, which has a total value of -1.55 (if you're looking at these numbers I get this from adding the bounds and dividing by 2).

 

The reason CO2 has such a high radiative forcing value is because it works over various feedback chains in the atmosphere, one of the most important being water vapor. In case you didn't catch that, this means that the effects of water vapor are already included in these measurements and it therefore does not need to be addressed any further.

 

So if you want to do some mathematical gymnastics, these are the numbers that you need to be using:

 

[b']Total anthropogenic: 1.6w/m^2

Total non-anthropogenic: .12w/m^2.[/b]

 

Have fun proving that .12 is greater then 1.6.

[Dak]

I received my numbers from wikipedia

 

'somewhere in wikipedia, go look for it' does not count as a source.

 

which article?

 

No. You are missing the point. The temperature increase from the increased water vapor has already been included within the .6C measurement!

 

then you should have said '3C correlates to 20% increase in H2O', not 'causes'. different things.

 

Do you see???? The .6C is measured NOW, and it includes all temperature increases, thus the TOTAL feedback result from the TOTAL temperature feedback can be calculated.

 

right. and, using your figures, it'd be 9-24% of that increase is due to an increase in CO2, whereas the rest is presumably due to an increase in H2O.

 

you cannot compare an increase in temperature to the total levels of GHGs. compare the increase to the increase, or the total to the total; not a mish-mash whereby you try to attribute a temperature change to the total levels of GHGs.

 

to paraphrase hagaar: it's like saying it only takes one pint to get me pissed, whilst ignoring that the one pint that gets me pissed is generally the ninth one

 

its true, from that, that 9 pints = pissed, and so each pint (including the last) contributed 1/9th of the overall inebreation

 

its true from that that the change of 1 pint resulted in the change from tipsy-->pissed.

 

its not true (and this is what you're doing) that the change in alcohol, which is 1/9th of the total alcohol, contributed to 1/9th of the change from tipsy to pissed, hence the last pint was only 0.111111 responsible for the change in inebrety.

 

it was 0.1111 responsable for the entire level of inebriation; it was wholey responsable for the change in level of inebriation from the level@8-pints to the level@9-pints. assuming it's linear. which it probably isn't (so, it's a perfect analogy to your calculation)

 

And again, things are simple, if understood properly they can be incrementally digested and understood in simple increments. Whenver someone suggests something is complex they probably don't completely understand it themselves.

 

yes. the simple explanation is that the climate is a system of interconnected subsystems that have complex and non-obvious effects on one-another.

 

for example: CO2 traps heat, and warms the planet up. this melts ice. ice reflects heat, so the melting of ice results in another slight increase in temperature. also, increased temperature results in increased atmospheric H2O, which is itself a GHG. so, another increase follows. this effects the amount of cloud cover, which has a somewhat unpredictable (with current knowledge) effect on global warming. these effects are all antagonistic, and you have to bear in mind, when factoring in the increase from any given effect, that a temperature increase will cause even more atmospheric H2O, ice melt, and cloud change, which will again cause more temperature increases (no, not infinately), which have to be factored in aswell.

 

now, i've explained the above in simple terms. you can somewhat start to examine the effects of each individual bit in simplish terms that give you the jist of whats going on. but to examin the whole thing, and the exact interactions, is not possible whilst still being 'simple'. sorry.

 

not to mention that, beyond a certain point, other factors come into play. i linked a paper earlyer saying that beyond a certain temperature, oceans become a CO2 source, not a sink. id assume that beyond a point, the level of icemelt increases the ocean volume to a point where the increased ability of the ocean to act as a sink becomes relevent, and has to be factored in. in addition, changing climate will result in a changing ecosystem, with plants taking up a different amount of CO2, which also has to be taken into account, as does our rate of deforestation.

 

I absolutely assure you, the climate will never be expressable as simply as a few additions and multiplications.

 

 

Oh and btw your citation "Beyond the Ivory towers" says that increased ghg are probably responsible but no where in that article does it say "majority from man"

 

from the citation: Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities

 

also (emphasis mine):

Human activities have increased the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols since the pre-industrial era. The atmospheric concentrations of key anthropogenic greenhouse gases (i.e., carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and tropospheric ozone (O3)) reached their highest recorded levels in the 1990s, primarily due to

the combustion of fossil fuels, agriculture, and land-use changes

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf (pdf)

 

and, no, the ipcc are not biased. as i pointed out, it's been scientifically proven that the ipcc represents consensus ('beyond ivory towers', which i'd point out was published in a peer-reviewed journal).

 

can you find any articles suggesting natural causes of /\[GHG]?

 

btw, just incase you arent aware: [blah] means 'consentration of blah', and triangle means change in.

 

 

And also the article did what others were doing earlier, it bases conclusiveness on the percentage of articles for and agaisnt GW.....hardly scientific.

 

none against = consensus. so, yes, scientific.

[theCPE]

Do you not realize what you're doing? You're doing exactly what Bascule said -- applying linear functions and ignoring feedback loops with simple rules that do not work out that way in reality.It has been explained, many times, in simple terms. You're just trying to turn it into something that it's not, which implies you don't understand what's going on.

Wrong again for the .... probably 12th time.....

I am not ignoring these magical feedback loops, I included them in the calculations that you are ignoring........

 

Pick up a physics book and look at what the equations tell you...I don't know why people always make a big deal about relativity and Einstein.

 

Oh, there is a physics book with GW equations? Relativity is easy to understand, just like GW, anyone that suggests otherwise is incapable of explaining them because they don't understand themselves. Just like you didn't understand the analogy.

 

Ok so you're just redefining what global warming is. In that case this is a straw man --

I have only gathered one thing by your coninuied posting.....you love the phrase straw man.... And what part of EPA's definition of GW don't you comprehend....I didn't redefine anything.....

 

Out of the .6C increase in temperature sense 1975, humans are responsible for .54C, or .5 if you round down.

No, not since 1975 BUT I have't disagreed that the latest increases in GHG have resulted in temperature increases, this however is not equivalent to 90% of GW which someone was spouting a few pages back, hence my math to show man doesn't contribute 90%.

 

 

 

I don't know how many times I have to tell you this because you just keep ignoring it. Reason? Probably because you don't like the fact that it makes your premises invalid. You're trying to find simple rules to govern the climate but it just doesn't work like this.

Point out any rule I have created. And while you are at it, could you point out which of my premises is invalidated by whatever it is you keep telling me???

 

There are many things that you are overlooking in your calculations -- for instance the effect of the ice-water feedback where melting ice causes temperatures to rise, which causes more ice to melt, causing temperatures to rise even more, etc,

 

Holy shit.

 

Not another one. Ok really people. This is pretty bad.

 

When the measurement is done that shows temperature has increased by .6C, that value includes the temperature increases due to feedback from original increases..........it is very simple......

 

 

So if you want to do some mathematical gymnastics, these are the numbers that you need to be using:

 

Total anthropogenic: 1.6w/m^2

Total non-anthropogenic: .12w/m^2.

 

Have fun proving that .12 is greater then 1.6.

 

Give me a citation of these numbers and I will take upon myself the duty of explaining things on a much more simple level that some of you facing difficulties will then be able to understand.

[theCPE]

'somewhere in wikipedia, go look for it' does not count as a source.

Oops, my apologies.

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

 

you cannot compare an increase in temperature to the total levels of GHGs. compare the increase to the increase, or the total to the total; not a mish-mash whereby you try to attribute a temperature change to the total levels of GHGs.

You can't only consider a portion of ghgs when determining contributions!! That makes no sense. If all ghgs are blocking radiation from escaping why would you consider only some of them, especially if the system is such a dynamic system with feedback loops????

 

to paraphrase hagaar: it's like saying it only takes one pint to get me pissed, whilst ignoring that the one pint that gets me pissed is generally the ninth one

Actually that is what you are saying...haha, don't you see!!! You are talking about the 'increases' or latest ghgs, which in your cute little paraphrasing is the last pint!!!!

 

its true, from that, that 9 pints = pissed, and so each pint (including the last) contributed 1/9th of the overall inebreation

Exactly....which is what I have been showing!

 

it was 0.1111 responsable for the entire level of inebriation

That is correct, whereas your next remark about being wholey responsible is incorrect, all prior pints were .111 responsible...like you were saying a sec agao before suddenly swinging around 180 and confusing me thoroughly

 

(so, it's a perfect analogy to your calculation)

Except not.

 

Since the pints are sequential, and the water vapor and co2 are not sequential and contribute percentages of total 'inebreation' if you will.

 

 

for example: CO2 traps heat, and warms the planet up. this melts ice. ice reflects heat, so the melting of ice results in another slight increase in temperature. also, increased temperature results in increased atmospheric H2O, which is itself a GHG. so, another increase follows. this effects the amount of cloud cover, which has a somewhat unpredictable (with current knowledge) effect on global warming. these effects are all antagonistic, and you have to bear in mind, when factoring in the increase from any given effect, that a temperature increase will cause even more atmospheric H2O, ice melt, and cloud change, which will again cause more temperature increases (no, not infinately), which have to be factored in aswell.

 

I think my head is going to explode........

 

Do you not realize that the temperature was measured.....and calculations done......and the increase found that TOTALLY encompasses everything you just listed was .6C.......the temperature doesn't continue to increase as the calculations are done.....

 

 

 

I absolutely assure you, the climate will never be expressable as simply as a few additions and multiplications.

Cheese and crackers....

 

I am not expressing the climate with a few calculations....im expressing the contributions of KNOWN ghgs to KNOWN radiation blocking capabilities to KNOWN increases in C.

 

 

none against = consensus. so, yes, scientific.

Oh thats classic haha, exactly why the ipcc is formed.....

 

I'll have to keep that in mind.....if I don't publish articles agaisnt my position in my journal I created than that means scientifically I am right because there is no opposition. Haha that is so funny.

[1veedo]

Oh, there is a physics book with GW equations? Relativity is easy to understand, just like GW, anyone that suggests otherwise is incapable of explaining them because they don't understand themselves. Just like you didn't understand the analogy.

Alright maybe I missed your little "analogy" (lol I still don't see it), but that had nothing to do with global warming. I was just commenting about how everyone likes to talk about Einstein and relativity -- it's not that big of a deal.

No, not since 1975 BUT I have't disagreed that the latest increases in GHG have resulted in temperature increases, this however is not equivalent to 90% of GW which someone was spouting a few pages back, hence my math to show man doesn't contribute 90%.

Out of total global warming, not "the Earth is warmer because of the atmosphere," but warming that has occurred sense about 1750, humans are responsible for a large portion of the temperature rise. Things changed, however, after 1975, and today, currently, we are causing over 90% of global warming (ie we are causing 90% of any temperature rise that is happening today, eg right now). I think I've made this abundantly clear, you just like to play with words, which is a logical fallacy btw known as an equivocation.

Point out any rule I have created. And while you are at it, could you point out which of my premises is invalidated by whatever it is you keep telling me???

I have also made this abundantly clear. You are representing global warming with two linear factors: water vapor and CO2. Your error in logic is assuming that humans are not responsible for this increase in water vapor. You're also leaving out a plethora of other factors in the climate and you are completely ignoring feedback systems.

Give me a citation of these numbers and I will take upon myself the duty of explaining things on a much more simple level that some of you facing difficulties will then be able to understand.

This came from Climate Change 2007: The Scientific Basis.

[theCPE]

Things changed, however, after 1975, and today, currently, we are causing over 90% of global warming (ie we are causing 90% of any temperature rise that is happening today, eg right now). I think I've made this abundantly clear, you just like to play with words, which is a logical fallacy btw known as an equivocation.

NO!! I am not playing with words, symantecs, or definitions. PLEASE go read the definition provided by the EPA!!!! GW isn't warming that happends TODAY (today to always be the day of the discussion) GW is the total encompassing dynamic of all processes that warm the planet! That is why you can not say man causes 90% of current GW....that is what is wrong, and entirely different than saying man has caused the majority of temperature increases since 1975.....

 

Your error in logic is assuming that humans are not responsible for this increase in water vapor.

 

Really? That is very odd, considering my calculations involved 4% of water vapor being due to man....wait, did you see my calculations, or are you ignoring them like you are accusing me of ignoring things....

[SkepticLance]

Quote from 1veedo,

 

Originally Posted by SkepticLance

A new oceanic current pattern, which is said to help make computer models more accurate. Obviously, without this knowledge, the models are less accurate, which has been the case up to the present. So what else remains to be discovered, which is needed to make models accurate? Lots I suspect.

 

This is an argument from ignorance.

And this is absolutely true. The complexity is beyond any human mind, and is STILL beyond the capacity of computer models to cope with.

 

Then can you please explain why these computer models are so exceedingly accurate? Eg the original NASA GISS simulation back in the 80s that is, still today, "right on the money" (actual quote from NASA)*.

The current situation is that for 30 years CO2 increase and warming correlate well. Before that, things were different.

 

This is a false cause and is therefore a rather unreliable method to infer causation -- correlation does not imply causation.

 

1. You are claiming I am arguing from ignorance. No. I am arguing from your ignorance, and the ignorance of everyone who tries to set up climate models without all the facts.

 

2. Computer models have been 'right on the money' only over the past 30 years, when warming has been almost linear. Whoop de do!

 

3. Correlation indeed does not imply causation. However, the reverse is 100% reliable. That is, there is no causation without correlation. Since greenhouse gas increase and warming/cooling did not correlate before 1975, then, either, it was not a cause and effect relationship, or at least, other causes were more important.

[Dak]

Oops, my apologies.

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

 

thank you. see, now i know what the **** you're talking about

 

from the same article: the greenhouse effect adds about 30C to the temperature of the globe. the greenhouse effect is all of the GHGs trapping heat.

 

now, CO2 contributes 9-24% of this greenhouse effect, i.e. 9-24% of 30C

 

lets go with 15%, as it's in the middle. 15% of 30C is 4.5C. so, CO2 contributes 4.5C to the greenhouse effect, and so all the CO2 contributes 4.5C to the total heat of the earth.

 

but wait! humans have recently increased [CO2] by 35%, so CO2s contribution will surely rise by 35%:

 

old[CO2] = 4.5C

[CO2]*1.35 = 4.5C*1.35 #this is adding 35% to both sides

new[CO2] = 6.07C

 

thats a difference of 1.5C. so, surely from this the recent increase of [CO2] should have added 1.5C to our greenhouse effect, and the earth should have heated up by 1.5C.

 

BUT, it's only heated up by 0.6C :eek:

 

this is because the relationship between [CO2] and temperature is not liniar. neither is it simple. increasing [CO2] by 35% will not increase [CO2]s contribution to the greenhouse effect by 35%.

 

I'm pretty sure this bit disproves your logic, you know.

 

Actually that is what you are saying...haha, don't you see!!! You are talking about the 'increases' or latest ghgs, which in your cute little paraphrasing is the last pint!!!!

 

yes. and the last pint was 100% responsible for the change in drunkenness from the penultimate pint.

 

similarly: the change in [CO2] is responsible for 100% of the change in [CO2]-caused-heat from the point before the extra CO2 was added.

 

That is correct, whereas your next remark about being wholey responsible is incorrect, all prior pints were .111 responsible...like you were saying a sec agao before suddenly swinging around 180 and confusing me thoroughly

 

ok, look. making up figures for the sake of the example:

 

[CO2] = 100ppm, tempFromCO2 = 10C

 

[CO2] = 110ppm, tempFromCO2 = 12C

 

a few things to note:

 

1/ in the first example, 1ppm = 0.1000C; in the second example, 1ppm = 0.1091. this is non-liniarity.

 

2/ the difference between the second and first example is +10ppm, +2C. now, in the second example, each ppm is responsable for 0.1091C. each 10ppm is therefore responsible for 1.091C; yet, the 10ppm increase is completely responsable for the 2C increase.

 

if you really look at what's happening there, then:

 

10ppm initially = 1.000C.

 

an additional 10ppm effects a 2C change; NOT a 1.000C change, as you might expect.

 

furthermore, once 10ppm are added, each 10ppm is responsable for 1.091C; no longer just 1.000C.

 

the 10ppm increase is still entirely responsible for the 2C increase, not just a 1.091C increase, despite the fact that any given 10ppm only contribute 1.091C.

 

so, depending on which way you look at it, you can see 10ppm as contributing 1C, 2C, or 1.091C.

 

crazy, but entirely true. this is why /\[CO2] calculations are non-trivial.

 

10ppm contribute 1.091C, BUT the 10ppm increase increased temperature by 2C. alternatively, any given 1.091C is caused by 10ppm, but the 2C increase was caused by 10ppm. do you see?

 

this is why your attempt to divide the recent change in temperature across all CO2 is incorect; when talking about GW, you are talking about the 0.6C increase, and how much of that is attributable to the 24%[CO2] increase will not be the same as how much any given 0.6C of the greenhouse effect 24%[CO2] is responsable for.

 

to use the above example, what you were doing was saying:

 

hey, a 2C increase in temperature.

 

and a 10ppm increase in [CO2].

 

now, 10ppm = 1.091C.

 

so, a 10ppm increase must account for just 1.091C, which is roughly half of 2C.

 

the 10ppm increase is, therefore, responsable for roughly half the 2C increase.

 

when, clearly, it's responsable for all of it.

 

I'll have to keep that in mind.....if I don't publish articles agaisnt my position in my journal I created than that means scientifically I am right because there is no opposition. Haha that is so funny.

 

the ippc, afaik, don't maintain a scientific journal.

 

nor did they peer-review, per se; rather, someone published a paper expressing the opinion that the ipcc report represented consensus, which itself was peer-reviewed. afaik, no-ones rebuked that paper; hence, the statement 'the ipcc report represents consensus' is scientifically supported.

 

which, in turn, means that the ipcc report is scientifically supported, which is somewhat unsurprising.