Global Warming explained - "inconvenient" or otherwise!

[theCPE]

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

Yeh, you can demonstrate evolution very easily using statistics.

 

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

No but when it is known what greenhouse gases are, and it is known what contributions they produce, and it is known what man contributes to those gases then it obviously lends to math.....whether or not you want to accept that or understand that doesn't matter.

which still isn't 11%

No, the 11-20% came from me using 50% and 80% of that increase from fossil fuels. I will now once again to humor you use 100%, therefore 25% of the co2 in the atmosphere is from man. .25*.24 = .06 + .029 (water vapor) = 9%

 

There, my apologies, man is responsible for anywhere from 5-9% of GW.

 

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

Because, like I pointed out before (again with the repeating myself) there is a reason that ipcc or other organizations don't provide such simple explanations. They want to paint as dire a picture as possible, simplicity relativism doesn't help them do that.

 

 

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.

If that is true, that is very scarey. This isn't calculus, this isn't DE, this isn't linear systems. This is really similar to a basic chemistry problem from chem101. You have mutliple sources that contribute X amount each, what is the total amount contributed by source Z.

 

 

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'

 

What a joke.

 

I have provided a site that linked all of its sources which were climatologist and scientists. The site had very similar results as I have provided over and over. But as usual the response from the GW advocacy club is "heh, well the ipcc doesn't say that so its bullshit".

 

You not understanding the math doesn't make it wrong, it just means you can't come to a proper conclusion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the numbers, every time you or someone else complains about the distributions I obliged. And now at 9% we are far from the 90% number.

 

And again, no crap, man is causing warming....I just said that. But the ipcc words its results intentionally to mislead and sensationalize. Do you get that? Just like oil scares in the past, and global cooling and famine in the past. SENSATIONALISM gets attention and makes things happen. Honest numbers that show that yeh, man does cause GW, but nothing to cry about doom over doesn't cause change.

 

And trying to enact change through false pretenses is wrong.

 

If you are still not understanding the math, I would be happy to explain every * and + with a paragraph. It really is simple, I promise. The most difficult part about it is understanding how proportions and distributions of "solutions" works.

[Dak]

Yeh, you can demonstrate evolution very easily using statistics.

 

no you can't. bits of it, yes, but not all of it.

 

No but when it is known what greenhouse gases are, and it is known what contributions they produce, and it is known what man contributes to those gases then it obviously lends to math.....whether or not you want to accept that or understand that doesn't matter.

 

at no point did i say that maths wasn't involved.

 

No, the 11-20% came from me using 50% and 80% of that increase from fossil fuels. I will now once again to humor you use 100%, therefore 25% of the co2 in the atmosphere is from man. .25*.24 = .06 + .029 (water vapor) = 9%

 

There, my apologies, man is responsible for anywhere from 5-9% of GW.

 

ok, i get that, reading from left to right, it's:

 

anthropogenic CO2 * ? = 0.6 + (presumably anthropogenic) water vapor = 9%

 

i'm curious as to what the 0.24 is.

 

anyway, irreguardless of what you think, that doens't change the fact that the science says that mankind is responsable for the majority of recent GW. you could come up with as many small calculations as you want for gravity, evolution, or whatever, that disagree with the consensus, and that still wouldn't change the fact that gravity occours, and that the modern synthesys is correct. rather, it would indicate that you probably don't understand gravity/evolution.

 

Because, like I pointed out before (again with the repeating myself) there is a reason that ipcc or other organizations don't provide such simple explanations. They want to paint as dire a picture as possible, simplicity relativism doesn't help them do that.

 

again, wether the IPCC benifited or not from the painting of 'as dire a picture' as they did is irrelevent. at the most, it means that (for them) it's a happy coincidence that the science allows for painting a bleak picture. as has already been scientifically proven, the IPCC represents scientific consensus.

 

Its an ad-homenin argument. not even a relevent one. try to argue against their argument, not the IPCC.

 

 

If that is true, that is very scarey. This isn't calculus, this isn't DE, this isn't linear systems. This is really similar to a basic chemistry problem from chem101. You have mutliple sources that contribute X amount each, what is the total amount contributed by source Z.

 

i was refering to the entire maths involved in calculating the effects of something on the environment, not your maths.

 

I have provided a site that linked all of its sources which were climatologist and scientists. The site had very similar results as I have provided over and over. But as usual the response from the GW advocacy club is "heh, well the ipcc doesn't say that so its bullshit".

 

would you mind giving the citation again, please?

 

it's a long thread

 

If you are still not understanding the math, I would be happy to explain every * and + with a paragraph. It really is simple, I promise. The most difficult part about it is understanding how proportions and distributions of "solutions" works.

 

I'm genuinely curious as to what you're on about.

 

however, a better approach would be to cite a paper that uses your calculation to arrive at the 'mankind is responsable for 9% of global warming' conclusion. i'd believe that.

 

If you can't find one, and you truly believe your right, then go ahead and publish. you don't need a PhD, just the ability to persuade the journal that you're right, which -- given that it's basic chemistry 101, and such a simple equasion -- shouldn't be a problem, no?

[1veedo]

Your math doesn't work because you are completely ignoring the effects of human activities through feedback systems. Your argument amounts to CO2 causes X (5-9%) of global warming while water vapor causes the rest. But in reality, as I've probably explained several times and you just ignore, CO2 works through various feedback systems, including water vapor, to effect the climate. Your problem is that you just don't understand climate science -- you are arguing against global warming with a straw man.

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, it is far better for the ipcc's position to say that the "majority" (no number still) is from anthropogenic sources.....

Other human activities matter as well. Humans aren't causing global warming just by burning fossil fuels, but our farming (and lets not forget about cow poopy), deforestation, pollution on tundra (absorbs heat instead of reflecting it), etc, all contributed at least slightly to global warming (most of these contribute to methane levels, and not CO2). Just being here and "breathing" in and of itself does not effect temperatures. Humans have been on this planet for a really long time and only recently have we started to have adverse effects on the climate.

[bascule]

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.....

 

The IPCC is using the output of general circulation models to draw their conclusions.

 

As far as I can tell, you're trying to apply a layman's "as I see it" sort of approach to the problem.

 

As a similar example I could ask why physicists would conclude that two objects of different masses dropped from the same height in a vacuum will hit the ground at the same time. If we have a 5g object and a 10g object then it's really a matter of simple math to conclude that t = d / m, and therefore the 10g object will clearly hit the ground in half the time it takes for the 5g object.

 

Now we can ask why the physics community does not have any number like this? I believe it is obvious, because the methodology employed in the calculation is completely flawed. That's simply not how physical systems behave. But from an ad hoc, "as I see it" layman's perspective it seems reasonable.

 

Your calculations are wrong because the climate system does not behave in the manner you expect it to.

 

This isn't calculus, this isn't DE, this isn't linear systems. This is really similar to a basic chemistry problem from chem101. You have mutliple sources that contribute X amount each, what is the total amount contributed by source Z.

 

Unfortunately it is calculus, and the behavior of the system is non-linear. Forcing responses often depend on the state of the entire climate system, and altering one does not have the sort of linear response you want to ascribe to it.

 

This is why it takes a general circulation model in order to derive these figures. This is why you can't have simple, easy-to-swallow explanations directed at laymen. The climate system is a monsterously complex system riddled with non-linearities and feedback loops, which requires the knowledge of a vast multitude of scientific disciplines to even begin to understand.

[Icemelt]

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.

 

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

 

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.

1) I can see nothing anomalous in the past 100 years !

 

2) "Facts accepted by science" - what do you mean by this ?

There is no consensus, that's just the point !

 

3) These guys are famous and amongst the leaders in their fields, That's why they were all chosen as IPCC authors. I'm not going to do your research for you. There's tons of stuff available from them and many other colleagues.

 

You can discard the opinions of these eminently qualified scientists with decades of experience if you wish, but I know my limitations, and I am inclined to take more notice of them than our little group of relatively under-qualified scientists on a discussion forum. I also have personal experience of intimidation, and I am very prepared to believe that there is something rather more sinister afoot. This is not conspiracy theory, but standard government practice.

 

Here's a nice juicy bit I just found from Richard Lindzen to keep the pot boiling !

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

 

Climate of Fear

Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

 

BY RICHARD LINDZEN

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

 

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

 

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

 

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

 

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

 

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

 

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

 

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

 

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

 

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

[theCPE]

no you can't. bits of it, yes, but not all of it.

-Probability of mutation due to radiation levels.

-Kmaps for gene distribution into offspring.

-Length of time

 

Math can't describe the mutation....but it describes the amount of mutation...

 

 

i'm curious as to what the 0.24 is.

From the wiki articles people have posted, the largest percentage that co2 contributes to GW is 24% and the smallest is 9%. Being the objective person I am, I used the largest percentage.

 

anyway, irreguardless of what you think, that doens't change the fact that the science says that mankind is responsable for the majority of recent GW. you could come up with as many small calculations as you want for gravity, evolution, or whatever, that disagree with the consensus, and that still wouldn't change the fact that gravity occours, and that the modern synthesys is correct. rather, it would indicate that you probably don't understand gravity/evolution.

So man's effects on GW are as founded and conclusive as gravity now! WOW!

 

If you can't understand why data and results are presented the way they are from ipcc than it is your own naivity that needs questioning.

 

 

 

again, wether the IPCC benifited or not from the painting of 'as dire a picture' as they did is irrelevent. already been scientifically proven, the IPCC represents scientific consensus.

 

Of course it is relevant if ipcc benefits by painting a more dire picture than actually true. And one peered reviewed journal of a group of scientist with all the same motives and agendies hardly equates to scientific consensus. It means what that group agrees with gets printed......duh.

 

Its an ad-homenin argument. not even a relevent one. try to argue against their argument, not the IPCC.

Hi, kettle!

 

That is exactly what I have been doing, thus my math. You on the other hand can only revert to "well I haven't been told that by ipcc so obviously it is wrong."

 

Why don't you do what you are suggesting, and refute my math or logic.

 

however, a better approach would be to cite a paper that uses your calculation to arrive at the 'mankind is responsable for 9% of global warming' conclusion. i'd believe that.

Because it wont come from your coveted ipcc because it wont agree with their ideas. And therefore you or whomever else will once again just immediately claim bullshit. BUT AGAIN! If my math is so obviously wrong SHOW WHY OR HOW!!!

 

If you can't find one, and you truly believe your right, then go ahead and publish. you don't need a PhD, just the ability to persuade the journal that you're right, which -- given that it's basic chemistry 101, and such a simple equasion -- shouldn't be a problem, no?

 

Its been published before, the numbers were not exactly mine but the jest was the same:

 

Man equtes to under 10% of GW. The fact that it isn't in ipcc just means what I pointed out earlier....they print what they agree with.

 

If you really want to see others working similar math than by all means google "man's contributions to GW" or other similar strings and you can find just as many sites/links that say man is MOSTLY as you can man isn't MOSTLY.

[MolotovCocktail]

This thread seems to be degenerating into attacks on other people....

[theCPE]

Your math doesn't work because you are completely ignoring the effects of human activities through feedback systems. Your argument amounts to CO2 causes X (5-9%) of global warming while water vapor causes the rest.

Wrong again, (second time you have asserted this) I used your own numbers for increase in water vapor due to temperature and included the GW due to increased water vapor.

 

Remember.....3C = 20% increase in water vapor

.6/3 * .2 = 4% increase in water vapor due to feedback......

That is now about post 10 with that calculation.....

[Icemelt]

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).

 

OK - I have the data, but it will take a while to convert to linear time scale, and of course it will de-emphasise recent data. I have quite a bit of work on this week but I'll do my best and also try to acquire something more dramatic whilst I'm at it !

[theCPE]

As a similar example I could ask why physicists would conclude that two objects of different masses dropped from the same height in a vacuum will hit the ground at the same time. If we have a 5g object and a 10g object then it's really a matter of simple math to conclude that t = d / m, and therefore the 10g object will clearly hit the ground in half the time it takes for the 5g object.

Um......no.

 

You apparently don't understand GW or physics.

 

F = ma

F = m1*m2/d^2

 

By setting the equations equal it is obvious the mass of the 5g object and the 10g object cancel out.

 

5(a) = 5 * (earth's mass)/d^2 OOPS there goes the 5g

10(a) = 10 * (earth's mass)/d^2 OOPS there goes the 10g

 

Feel free to insert any gravitational source into earth's slot in my above example.

 

 

 

Your calculations are wrong because the climate system does not behave in the manner you expect it to.

Uh no.

 

The system is classified by having specific contributions from specific greenhouse gases.

 

The system is also classified by feedback amounts.

 

The system is further classified by how much of the greenhouse gases comes from man.

 

I took all of those into account.

 

 

 

Unfortunately it is calculus, and the behavior of the system is non-linear. Forcing responses often depend on the state of the entire climate system, and altering one does not have the sort of linear response you want to ascribe to it.

Could you please demonstrate where any calculus is needed.

 

This is why it takes a general circulation model in order to derive these figures. This is why you can't have simple, easy-to-swallow explanations directed at laymen. The climate system is a monsterously complex system riddled with non-linearities and feedback loops, which requires the knowledge of a vast multitude of scientific disciplines to even begin to understand.

 

Again with the feedback defense. I used veedo's own numbers he linked to feedback produced by temperature on other gases. It doesn't matter if it is linear the correlation can be examined and mathematical calculated.

[theCPE]

Ok, dak.

 

And I address you becaue I feel you are the only one of the recent posters that believes man is responsible for the majority of GW that probably is honestly trying to understand what I am pointing out.

 

If you really believe what I am posting pertaining to math is wrong then show why. Just like I pointed out how bascule was wrong about gravity and falling bodies.

 

If you dont' want me to question ipcc and instead question their science than do the same for me.

 

Look at my math, question which parts seem wrong.

[theCPE]

Dak,

 

I think I have identified the source of confusion.

 

And it is something I have incidentally been alluding to of late.

 

It is all how ipcc words its results/findings.

 

The 90% of current GW is due to man statistic.

 

What ipcc means is that man has caused 90% of the .6C change over the last century.

 

What they say sounds like (especially to politicians or laymen whom have no clue about GW) man is and cotinues to cause 9 times as much of the gases that warm our planet as nature.

 

When in my math I have demonstrated that man contributes anywhere from 5-9% of the gases causing GW.

 

It is all in how ipcc words things for sensationalism and fear.

 

Does that sound like the source of confusion?

[Dak]

1) I can see nothing anomalous in the past 100 years !

 

the sharpest change (by far) in temperature anomoly in the last 10,000 happening over the last 100 years isn't anomolous?

 

2) "Facts accepted by science" - what do you mean by this ?

There is no consensus, that's just the point !

 

again: oreskes, 2004

 

the fact that theres scientific consensus is, itself, scientifically proven. as, coincidentally (and in the same paper), is the fact that the IPCC reports at least up to 2004 represent that consensus.

 

3) These guys are famous and amongst the leaders in their fields, That's why they were all chosen as IPCC authors. I'm not going to do your research for you. There's tons of stuff available from them and many other colleagues.

 

so you're outright refusing to offer a citation, and trying to fob it off as somehow me being lazy?

 

thats not how burden of proof works. if you want to argue that theres legitimate scientific doubt towards the consensus, they it's up to you to provied the citations.

 

You can discard the opinions of these eminently qualified scientists with decades of experience if you wish, but I know my limitations, and I am inclined to take more notice of them than our little group of relatively under-qualified scientists on a discussion forum.

 

if you know your limitations, then shouldn't you listen to science? as opposed to individual scientists?

 

as i said, if they haven't published, then -- with all due respect to them -- that can only be because they don't actually have any valid arguments to back their oppinions up with.

 

-Probability of mutation due to radiation levels.

-Kmaps for gene distribution into offspring.

-Length of time

 

Math can't describe the mutation....but it describes the amount of mutation...

 

my claim wasn't that maths couldn't describe evolution, but that the maths was not simple.

 

From the wiki articles people have posted, the largest percentage that co2 contributes to GW is 24% and the smallest is 9%. Being the objective person I am, I used the largest percentage.

 

you used the argument that CO2 contributes 24% of GW to deduce that CO2 contributes 9% of GW?

 

Im not being facesious, i genuinly don't understand what you mean

 

 

So man's effects on GW are as founded and conclusive as gravity now! WOW!

 

no, they were simply the first two consensuses that came to mind.

 

 

Of course it is relevant if ipcc benefits by painting a more dire picture than actually true. And one peered reviewed journal of a group of scientist with all the same motives and agendies hardly equates to scientific consensus. It means what that group agrees with gets printed......duh.

 

but, as has been pointed out, the IPCC were acurately representing the consensus. ignore the IPCC and focus on the consensus. are you saying that the scientific consensus is flawed?0

 

You freaking kettle.

 

That is exactly what I have been doing, thus my math. You on the other hand can only revert to "well I haven't been told that by ipcc so obviously it is wrong."

 

what i actually said was that your maths was completely in disagreement with the scientific consensus. please don't reword my statements to make them seem rediculous

 

Why don't you do what you are suggesting, and refute my math or logic.

 

a/ i still don't actually understood it, because i'm still not clear what the numbers meant

 

b/ it's allready been refuted (see: bascule and 1veedo's posts)

 

c/ i have. your calculations, if correct, suggest a result that is mutually exclusive with the current scientific understanding of the matter. ergo, your calculations are incorrect.

 

or, the scientific understanding of the matter is incorrect, but i know which one i'm going to go with.

 

basically, as has already been said, climatology cannot be rendered down to:

 

effect of CO2 = [CO2]*K^oC

 

let alone combining the effects of [CO2] with [H2O] by simple addition

 

Its been published before, the numbers were not exactly mine but the jest was the same:

 

then, please, give me the citation.

 

If you really want to see others working similar math than by all means google "man's contributions to GW" or other similar strings and you can find just as many sites/links that say man is MOSTLY as you can man isn't MOSTLY.

 

yes, but random websites != science. otherwize evolution would be uncertain.

 

Um......no.

 

You apparently don't understand GW or physics.

 

that was quite clearly what he meant.

 

he was (quite politely) saying that you think your calculations are correct, but the only reason they seem it is because you don't understand why they're wrong. but they're still wrong.

 

What ipcc means is that man has caused 90% of the .6C change over the last century.

 

What they say sounds like (especially to politicians or laymen whom have no clue about GW) man is and cotinues to cause 9 times as much of the gases that warm our planet as nature.

 

When in my math I have demonstrated that man contributes anywhere from 5-9% of the gases causing GW.

 

but... 25% of the CO2, for example, is currently due to mankind. and it, iirc, 'almost certainly results in the observed temperature anomoly'. so i'm not sure where 9% comes from.

 

afaik, theres no support for the claim that man produces 90% of GHGs, so i'll agree with that; but that doesn't change that current scientific thought is that the increase in atmospheric GHGs is probably what's caused all or most of the increase in temperature. not 9%

[theCPE]

you used the argument that CO2 contributes 24% of GW to deduce that CO2 contributes 9% of GW?

Maybe I am not explaining myself well.

 

Wiki said that CO2 contributes between 9-24% of GW. They gave a range. I used the upper limit to give GW advocacy people the benefit of the doubt.

 

he was (quite politely) saying that you think your calculations are correct, but the only reason they seem it is because you don't understand why they're wrong. but they're still wrong.

Well than just as easily as I showed how that was wrong, someone should be able to show where my math is wrong.

 

afaik, theres no support for the claim that man produces 90% of GHGs, so i'll agree with that; but that doesn't change that current scientific thought is that the increase in atmospheric GHGs is probably what's caused all or most of the increase in temperature. not 9%

 

Again, the source of confusion is all in the wording used by ipcc.

 

90% of the .6C increase in temperature over the past century may be accurate.

 

That does not mean that 90% of GW is due to man.

9% of GW is due to man demonstrated by my math.

 

Ipcc doesn't print the calculations showing the math because that doesn't sound DIRE that is why it behooves them to say instead "90% of current GW is due to man" instead of ".54C of the .6C increase in temperature in the past century is due to man"

 

 

There is nothing about the GW dynamic that can not be described and examined with math. It is like a mixture problem. Understand?

 

24% of GW comes from CO2

76% of GW comes from water vapor

 

man is responsible for 25% of CO2

man is responsible for 4% of water vapor.

 

.04*.76 + .24 * .25 = .09 = 9%

 

See?

[Dak]

Maybe I am not explaining myself well.

 

Wiki said that CO2 contributes between 9-24% of GW. They gave a range. I used the upper limit to give GW advocacy people the benefit of the doubt.

 

24% of GW comes from CO2

76% of GW comes from water vapor

 

man is responsible for 25% of CO2

man is responsible for 4% of water vapor.

 

.04*.76 + .24 * .25 = .09 = 9%

 

See?

 

 

yes, but, afaict what you are doing is this:

 

let us assume that CO2 contributes 24% of GW

 

(maths)

 

therefore, we can conclude that CO2 contributes 9% of GW

 

your conclusion seems to contradict one of your starting assumptions...

 

Well than just as easily as I showed how that was wrong, someone should be able to show where my math is wrong.

 

if i eventually end up understanding it, i shal do so

 

 

 

90% of the .6C increase in temperature over the past century may be accurate.

 

That does not mean that 90% of GW is due to man.

 

I don't understand.

 

9% of GW is due to man demonstrated by my math.

 

I'm sorry, but the science (still) disagrees with your overlysimplistic calculation, and bascule/1veedo's comments are still valid.

 

(and i still don't understand your maths)

 

Ipcc doesn't print the calculations showing the math because that doesn't sound DIRE that is why it behooves them to say instead "90% of current GW is due to man" instead of ".54C of the .6C increase in temperature in the past century is due to man"

 

they would seem to amount to the same thing

[SkepticLance]

To Icemelt.

 

Very nice quote from Richard Lindzen, even if the GW extremists are avoiding it.

 

Do you have any references to the 'iris effect' Lindzen talks about? It sounds important.

[theCPE]

yes, but, afaict what you are doing is this:

 

let us assume that CO2 contributes 24% of GW

 

(maths)

 

therefore, we can conclude that CO2 contributes 9% of GW

Not exactly, but now maybe I see some of the source of confusion.

 

The 9% is the total contributions MAN is responsible for pertaining to GW. It just so happens that the wiki range starts at 9% and the final number comes out 9%, they are separate values!

 

 

if i eventually end up understanding it, i shal do so

Heres hoping!!!

 

GW as defined by the EPA is any and all sources that produce greenhouse gases that cause our planet to be warm. The epa further points out how GW is necessary for life.

 

That being said, 90% of the past century's increase of .6C due to man is not equivalent to 90% of GW is due to man. Get it?

[Dak]

Not exactly, but now maybe I see some of the source of confusion.

 

The 9% is the total contributions MAN is responsible for pertaining to GW. It just so happens that the wiki range starts at 9% and the final number comes out 9%, they are separate values!

 

no, re-read what i said carefully.

 

you cannot assume that 24% of GW is caused by CO2, then deduce from that that 9% of GW is caused by CO2, and still consider your logic valid.

 

in logic, you cannot go:

 

a

(logical deduction)

therefore not-a

 

which is essentially what you're doing, as "CO2 causes 9% of GW" is not-"CO2 causes 24% of GW"

 

or, alternatively, your argument is 'CO2 causes 24% of GW, therefore CO2 does not cause 24% of GW'. do you see where i'm coming from now?

 

please explain exactly what you mean by your starting assumption of "24% of GW comes from CO2"

[1veedo]

So man's effects on GW are as founded and conclusive as gravity now! WOW!

 

If you can't understand why data and results are presented the way they are from ipcc than it is your own naivity that needs questioning.

Actually theCPE' date=' to be completely honest with you, global warming is as well-accepted in the scientific community as evolution is. Maybe not gravity because this is physics, but outside of the physical sciences, there really aren't any other theories that are as well-supported by both the evidence and the scientists themselves as climate change.

Why don't you do what you are suggesting, and refute my math or logic.

Your math and logic have been refuted many times in this thread. You always come back and just repeat yourself and never address the concerns drawn against your own logic. You have failed to refute our arguments against your "logic" so to speak.

Wrong again, (second time you have asserted this) I used your own numbers for increase in water vapor due to temperature and included the GW due to increased water vapor.

 

Remember.....3C = 20% increase in water vapor

.6/3 * .2 = 4% increase in water vapor due to feedback......

That is now about post 10 with that calculation.....

That was just the introduction of the chapter about water vapor. There are many other mechanisms within the climate that cause water vapor to increase. That is just a basic physical property of water and nothing more -- the climate system is incredibly more complex.

What ipcc means is that man has caused 90% of the .6C change over the last century.

No, humans had a smaller (although grater then 50%) influence during this period.

 

Between 1975 and 2005, temperatures rose .6C*, of which humans are more then 90% responsible for*.

When in my math I have demonstrated that man contributes anywhere from 5-9% of the gases causing GW.

Yes, but with an overly simplified and miss-understood model of climate science that does not accurate describe how the climate behaves in reality.

[theCPE]

you cannot assume that 24% of GW is caused by CO2, then deduce from that that 9% of GW is caused by CO2, and still consider your logic valid.

WTF?

 

Wiki states that CO2 contributes between 9% - 24% of total GW. Meaning there is not a consensus on exactly how much CO2 contributes, but is between 9-24....I used 24% as opposed to 9 or an average to benefit GW advocates.....

 

What do you not follow?

[Icemelt]

- - - - is there any way you can make time increase linearly?

 

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).

I just realised what a mammoth task it would be to reformat the chart to linear time scale !

At 100 years intervals it would be 1,000 points to replot, and then of course any variations in say the past 50 years would be unnoticeable.

So we’re gonna have to stay with the log time scale I’m afraid.

However, using my existing data, I’ve changed the scale to display just the data points from 100,000 to 400,000 YBP on the chart below which, although it looks a bit different in log format, shows the peaks and troughs corresponding to your chart, which I hope will be satisfactory enough to convince you of the integrity of my data.

 

 

[1veedo]

Well the point is that your data appears to support your conclusions because it is represented on a log scale. If you were to include the latest data point at 379ppm then you could see how abrupt of an increase we're really talking about here. On your chart above, this point would quite literally be off the top.

 

This is obvious because as we go back on the log scale we get 10k+ years for temperature/CO2 to fluctuate and therefore these changes seem much more rapid despite the fact that they were no more or less dramatic then the troughs we have on 1K years where the changes appear to be 10 times less then any change occurring over 10k years. Likewise the previous hundred years show a small slope because they are spread out over about a fifth of the entire graph with about a million years worth of data taking up the rest of the space.

 

We're not talking about a slight shift in temperature here. We're talking about a change in temperature that has occurred at least ten times faster then any other event in at least 65million years.

[Icemelt]

the sharpest change (by far) in temperature anomoly in the last 10,000 happening over the last 100 years isn't anomolous?

 

Sorry mate !

You can't just take a conveniently short period of two or three years to make comparisons, since past records are not accurate to the nearest year or two. It's necessary to take five or ten decades at an absolute minimum.

 

But take another look at the charts below.

You are correct about CO2, but there's no way that the current temperature and sea level change rates come close to what we experienced 10,000 years ago, when we emerged from the last glacial period.

 

For ease let's look at 4,000 year chunks of time

 

In the period 4,000 to 8,000 YBP the sea level rose by 13.1 metres

which is 14 times faster than the rise of 90cms in the period 0 to 4,000 YBP

 

In the period 8,000 to 12,000 YBP the sea level rose by 52 metres

which is 58 times faster than the rise of 90cms in the period 0 to 4,000 YBP

 

In the period 4,000 to 8,000 YBP the temperature fell by 0.25C

which is the same amount that it rose in the period 0 to 4,000 YBP

 

In the period 8,000 to 12,000 YBP the temperature rose by 0.8C

which is 3.2 times faster than the rise of 0.25C it rose in the period 0 to 4,000 YBP

 

In the period 4,000 to 8,000 YBP the CO2 rose by 8ppmv

which is 12.75 times slower than the 102ppmv that it rose by in the period 0 to 4,000 YBP

 

In the period 8,000 to 12,000 YBP the CO2 rose by 23ppmv

which is 4.5 times slower than the 102ppmv that it rose by in the period 0 to 4,000 YBP

 

However we do need realise that, although we are dealing with 100% of the sea water changing its level, when measuring CO2 we are only considering 0.054% of the atmosphere. Whilst the change in CO2 of 72ppmv over the past 100 years seems huge when compared with the total of 370ppmv, we should remember that it is actually equivalent to just 0.01% change in our atmosphere.

 

 

[1veedo]

You are correct about CO2' date=' but there's no way that the current temperature and sea level change rates come close to what we experienced 10,000 years ago, when we emerged from the last glacial period.[/quote']I'm just eyeballing this, and thus I'm taking upper bounds, but it looks like it took 24 thousand years for temperatures to rise less then 14C which is about.000583C/year while it only took the previous 100 years (1905 to 2005) for the temperature to increase by .8 = .008C/year, 1900-2000 of .6C = .006C/year, and 1975 to 2005 of .6C = .02C/year. We're talking a difference in magnitude of more then 100, and in the case of recent warming 1000, -- they're hardly comparable.

In the period 8,000 to 12,000 YBP the temperature rose by 0.8C

which is 3.2 times faster than the rise of 0.25C it rose in the period 0 to 4,000 YBP

Give me a break. For 4k years temperatures have been decreasing steadily, only in the last 200 or so years have temperatures actually increased any. We know for a FACT that in 100 years temperatures rose .6C which is 30 times faster then the .8C change that took 4k years to completely between 8k and 12k ybp. And if you want to go with the current increase of temperature which is .6C in thirty years, this is .02C/year or 100 times faster then your measly .0002C/year.

However we do need realise that, although we are dealing with 100% of the sea water changing its level, when measuring CO2 we are only considering 0.054% of the atmosphere. Whilst the change in CO2 of 72ppmv over the past 100 years seems huge when compared with the total of 370ppmv, we should remember that it is actually equivalent to just 0.01% change in our atmosphere.

Yes but in terms of its effect on our climate, CO2 is very important. This .054% of our atmosphere has a much larger effect on our climate then the 78% nitrogen.

 

edit-- Forgot to mention that on top of record warming, this warming is occurring during a time period that we know from historical patterns when temperatures should be decreasing, not increasing. What's going on right now is unusual for two reasons:

1) Because of the magnitude that it's occurring.

2) Because temperatures should not be increasing hardly at all.

 

It'd be ok and all if we were currently at then end of a 100 year glacial period, but we're actually right in the middle of any short term (25k) or long term(100k) cycle so the warming is completely out of place.

[Icemelt]

Well the point is that your data appears to support your conclusions because it is represented on a log scale. If you were to include the latest data point at 379ppm then you could see how abrupt of an increase we're really talking about here. On your chart above, this point would quite literally be off the top.

No mate ! My charts do include the latest figure of 379 it's just that you asked to look at the 100K to 400K in detail, so that chart starts at 100K and not today.

The original chart from present day below shows the past 50 years emphasised.

Whichever way you look at it, the bulk of the current increase in CO2 happened during the period 50 to 500 years ago and not in the past 50 years.