Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

Visualized below: The "linear" increase of 1%
[qimg]http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/2824/unledta.jpg[/qimg]

whoops.

change the x axis to (%)

 

[Furcifer]

No it does not depend on how you label your axis. Read the example I made up:
It's a increase for each year of

• 1% then
• ~1.98% then
• ~3.88%
• and I guess then your 5.7%

The graph would have those increases. The rate of increase is not constant. It changes. Thus the increase is not linear.
This is basic mathematics.

lol, I suggest a refresh on basic math then.

If something increases 1.8%, then 1.8% then 1.8% then 1.8% then 1.8% then 1.8% then 1.8% then 1.8% then 1.8% then 1.8% the rate of increase is constant. It's constant at 1.8%.

Trust me.

You do not need math to see this for CO2 - all you need is a ruler to see that the slope of the graph increases from the begining to the end. See the previous posts that you are still ignoring.

Indeed it does. And the increase in ppm is not linear. That's why I said I may have got my wires crossed. I believe it was an average or the average rate I was thinking about. Sufficed to say it isn't much and could be worse if we weren't taking measures to decrease it. I just don't know how different it would be.

Do you?

 

[Reality Check]

lol, I suggest a refresh on basic math then.

lol, I suggest a refresh on basic reading then

If something increases 1%, then 1.98% then 3.88% then 5.7% then 5.8% then 5.9% then 6.0% then 6.1% then 6.2% then 6.3% the rate of increase is not constant.

Indeed it does. And the increase in ppm is not linear. That's why I said I may have got my wires crossed.

Sorry, I must have missed your "wires crossed" post.

So we can both agree with everyone else in the world that the Mauna Loa data shows that the increase in CO2 is not linear as shown by the analysis of the observed results by Tamino. It starts off at a rate of less than 1 ppmv/yr in 1960 and rises to about 2 ppmv/yr by 2010.

Sufficed to say it isn't much and could be worse if we weren't taking measures to decrease it. I just don't know how different it would be.

Do you?

Suffice to say it is a lot (enough to account for the observed global warming).

I do not know how much difference the existing measures to reduce CO2 emissions have affected the increasing CO2 concentrations.

 

[lomiller]

change the x axis to (%)

So your answer to the problem of trend that isn't linear is to stop using a linear scale for the axis?

 

[tkmikkelsen]

Thank you and also to bit_pattern for answering my question.
Now I will head back to the religious boards. Global warming I do not want to deal, but raving lunatics with weird delusions are fine with me.

 

[Furcifer]

So your answer to the problem of trend that isn't linear is to stop using a linear scale for the axis?

No. You're confusing logarithms with percentage. A friend of mine is teaching 2nd grade, they're doing coordinates. I'm sure if they were given (1,1.8) (2,3.6) (3,5.4) they could do it. The decimals might throw them off, so (1,2) (2,4) (3,6) might be more appropriate. It might also help you to visualize what's going on here. You get the exact same linear graph if the x axis is just a plain old number or if it's (%).

I really don't know what you mean by "linear scale"? What don't you think is linear about a graph where the x-axis is labelled [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] and not linear about a graph that is labelled [1%,2%,3%,4%,5%,6%,7%,8%,9%]

 

[Furcifer]

lol, I suggest a refresh on basic reading then

Like the word "approximate"? It means something I don't think you think it means.

If something increases 1%, then 1.98% then 3.88% then 5.7% then 5.8% then 5.9% then 6.0% then 6.1% then 6.2% then 6.3% the rate of increase is not constant.

No that would produce a scatter plot, which would require a "line of best fit". I mentioned this before.

Sorry, I must have missed your "wires crossed" post.

No problem.

So we can both agree with everyone else in the world that the Mauna Loa data shows that the increase in CO2 is not linear as shown by the analysis of the observed results by Tamino[/URL]. It starts off at a rate of less than 1 ppmv/yr in 1960 and rises to about 2 ppmv/yr by 2010.

It's linear at approximately 1% per year. They actually run model simulations based on this all the time.

Suffice to say it is a lot (enough to account for the observed global warming).

If it were botulism 2 ppm would be a lot, as a "harmless" gas it isn't.

(see what I did there? I put harmless in quotes for a reason)

I do not know how much difference the existing measures to reduce CO2 emissions have affected the increasing CO2 concentrations.

That's a problem. At least we know what our money is doing when we burn fossil fuels and release CO2. It's moving our packages and heating our homes. You can almost convert the 2ppm of CO2 released into energy and say it moved 1000 gigatons of grain or kept 4 billion people warm. The measures to reduce CO2 don't and that's a bad thing. They might be able to count the CO2 in the atmosphere but actually measuring the amount coming or not coming from a source is a whole different thing all together.

 

[lomiller]

No. You're confusing logarithms with percentage.

Reoccurring percentages AR logarithmic.
Specifically they take the form: initial value *(1+X)^n

 

[Reality Check]

Like the word "approximate"? It means something I don't think you think it means.

It means about or close to.
The point is that the Mauna Loa CO2 data is not even approximately linear. You can see the annual variation in the data. Any straight line will not even fall within most of the annual variations.

No that would produce a scatter plot, which would require a "line of best fit". I mentioned this before.

No that does not have anything to do with a scatter plot or a "line of best fit". It would require a curve of best fit. That curve is obvously not a line since the rate of increase increases.

It's linear at approximately 1% per year. They actually run model simulations based on this all the time.
[/q



If it were botulism 2 ppm would be a lot, as a "harmless" gas it isn't.

(see what I did there? I put harmless in quotes for a reason)



That's a problem. At least we know what our money is doing when we burn fossil fuels and release CO2. It's moving our packages and heating our homes. You can almost convert the 2ppm of CO2 released into energy and say it moved 1000 gigatons of grain or kept 4 billion people warm. The measures to reduce CO2 don't and that's a bad thing. They might be able to count the CO2 in the atmosphere but actually measuring the amount coming or not coming from a source is a whole different thing all together.

 

[Reality Check]

It's linear at approximately 1% per year. They actually run model simulations based on this all the time.

No - the data is nonlinear. The "1%" you are using is an average over the 30 years of data.
People do run model simuations based on a average value fo CO2 increase.

 

[Furcifer]

No - the data is nonlinear. The "1%" you are using is an average over the 30 years of data.
People do run model simuations based on a average value fo CO2 increase.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. A 1% increase per year is a very common parameter. That's because the observed and recorded increase is 1% per year.

This is easily refuted or verified. Since I know the answer I'll leave this assignment to you.

 

[Furcifer]

It means about or close to.
The point is that the Mauna Loa CO2 data is not even approximately linear. You can see the annual variation in the data. Any straight line will not even fall within most of the annual variations.

*sigh

It's approximately 1% per year.

No that does not have anything to do with a scatter plot or a "line of best fit". It would require a curve of best fit. That curve is obvously not a line since the rate of increase increases.

*sigh

This is very simple. If you plot the annual percentage increase it's a scatter plot. In order to average the increase you draw a line of best fit.

You simply aren't familiar with common model parameters. If you read up on this you would understand.

 

[CapelDodger]

Anyway one of friends argument was that man made CO2 could not be the main culprit for global warming as the temperature had been cooling from the 1940s and until the mid 1970s and again since the start of the new millennium (or at least it was stagnated).

[snip]

Now my question is rather simple, what is the caused for the cooling trend from ca. 1940 until the mid-70s and then the stagnating trend in the past 10 years or so?

2010 was equal warmest year with '98 and '05, and 2011 is getting a good warm start, so the "new millenium" argument is easily dismissed.

In the 30's there was a global industrial depression, which only ended in mid-decade as the world revved-up for what we now know as World War 2. That led to a massive increase in pollution (the old-style, visible stuff) which had a major cooling effect. Stalin's 5-year plans were kicking-in about this time as well, Japan's China War got under way in 1936 with many cities burning, so the air was pretty bad. It took a fair while after the war to get that sorted, into the 70's in the West, into the 90's in Eastern Europe, and not nearly yet in China.

Man made CO2 in all those years have been rising. My guess, without knowing anything about it, is that is have something to do with the sun.

Over half of all man-made CO₂ has been emitted since 1970. So yes, it has been increasing for much longer, but at nothing like the recent rate. Arrhenius noticed the increase in atmospheric CO₂ in the late 19thCE, but didn't predict any impact for at least a few centuries. The Oil Age was not something he could have expected.

The Sun has been under close observation for decades now (and has been an object of great interest far longer), and it hasn't done anything noticeable apart from the recent solar minimum. It's not the Sun which is warming the planet, it's the enhanced greenhouse effect, just as predicted. There are any number of solar theories out there attempting to explain the warming which has occurred (and continues), but none of them stand up for a moment.

P.S.: I am sure the answer that I am looking for is buried somewhere in this thread but I am really too lazy to read through 52 pages of posts to find it.

And who could blame you. It may well not even be in this thread, since the points you raise are not new. They're quite hoary, in fact. You might be more willing to discuss the issue if you have some basic facts with which to squelch your friends .

 

[CapelDodger]

It's linear at approximately 1% per year. They actually run model simulations based on this all the time.

Models are run against a whole suite of projections because there is no scientific way of predicting what emissions will be in the future. No way at all with any great precision.

It's good that you've spotted the need for "approximately" but you're mis-applying it. It is approximately linear at 1% per year over few enough years. Or over far too many years for the last few decades to fill a pixel.

If it were botulism 2 ppm would be a lot, as a "harmless" gas it isn't.

(see what I did there? I put harmless in quotes for a reason)

So you say, but what reason do we have to believe you?

That's a problem. At least we know what our money is doing when we burn fossil fuels and release CO2. It's moving our packages and heating our homes. You can almost convert the 2ppm of CO2 released into energy and say it moved 1000 gigatons of grain or kept 4 billion people warm. The measures to reduce CO2 don't and that's a bad thing.

Sufficient unto the day is the joy thereof, and the future will take care of its own.

quote]They might be able to count the CO2 in the atmosphere but actually measuring the amount coming or not coming from a source is a whole different thing all together.[/quote]

And one that's been handled just as well. And after all, only about half of the CO₂ we generate by burning fossil fuels ends up in the atmosphere. It's the other half which calls for explanation, don't you think? (It largely has been explained, of course, but lets not get into that.)

You're surely not positing an entirely different, unidentified, natural source which has coincidentally manifested recently. That would be grasping at "unknown unknowns" beyond belief.

 

[Reality Check]

Missed this:

That's a problem. ...

My lack of knowledge of the impact of the existing measures to reduce CO2 on the concentration of CO2 is not a problem.

The problem is that that the accelerating increase in CO2 emitted by mankind is causing global temperatures to rise.
A solution is to reduce the amount of CO2 we emit.

We know what our money is doing when we burn fossil fuels and release CO2. We know what our money is doing when we burn less fossil fuels and release less CO2 (less money is spent, less CO2 is emitted, global warming reduces).

 

[Trakar]

No. You're confusing logarithms with percentage. A friend of mine is teaching 2nd grade, they're doing coordinates. I'm sure if they were given (1,1.8) (2,3.6) (3,5.4) they could do it. The decimals might throw them off, so (1,2) (2,4) (3,6) might be more appropriate. It might also help you to visualize what's going on here. You get the exact same linear graph if the x axis is just a plain old number or if it's (%).

I really don't know what you mean by "linear scale"? What don't you think is linear about a graph where the x-axis is labelled [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] and not linear about a graph that is labelled [1%,2%,3%,4%,5%,6%,7%,8%,9%]

you seem to be having problems understanding the rather simple differences in elementary pre-algebra between linear and non-linear equations.

a linear equation is one that plots a perfectly straight line when graphed

a non-linear equation is one that does not plot a perfectly straight line when graphed.

Global, annual CO2 emissions/accumulations of 1% per year are increasing at a non-linear rate.

 

[Furcifer]

a linear equation is one that plots a perfectly straight line when graphed

a non-linear equation is one that does not plot a perfectly straight line when graphed.

Global, annual CO2 emissions/accumulations of 1% per year are increasing at a non-linear rate.

lol, you may want to get out some graph paper for this one. (1,1) (2,1) (3,1) (4,1) (5,1)

Straight line?

(1,1%) (2,1%) (3,1%) (4,1%) (5,1%)

Straight line? I hope so.

Now let me explain the numbers. 1 means the first year, 2 means the second and so on. The 1% is the increase in CO2 from the last year. Each year there is a linear increase of 1%.

Basic stuff really.

 

[Furcifer]

My lack of knowledge of the impact of the existing measures to reduce CO2 on the concentration of CO2 is not a problem.

I don't doubt it's not a problem for you. Most alarmists don't care about the ends the only want to preach about the means. If you took a second to consider how much money is being spent and what it is accomplishing I believe we will all be better off. It's about accountability.

The problem is that that the accelerating increase in CO2 emitted by mankind is causing global temperatures to rise.

If you want to be literal then it's actually only part of the problem.

A solution is to reduce the amount of CO2 we emit.

That's part of the solution as it's rather simplistic. We also need to change the way we live.

We know what our money is doing when we burn fossil fuels and release CO2. We know what our money is doing when we burn less fossil fuels and release less CO2 (less money is spent, less CO2 is emitted, global warming reduces).

Rubbish. We need to know what our money is doing to reduce CO2. Nuclear power plants don't but themselves

 

[Furcifer]

Models are run against a whole suite of projections because there is no scientific way of predicting what emissions will be in the future. No way at all with any great precision.

Odd that you'd say that considering it's much easier to predict how much CO2 might be emitted than to say what the average global temperature might be.

It's good that you've spotted the need for "approximately" but you're mis-applying it. It is approximately linear at 1% per year over few enough years. Or over far too many years for the last few decades to fill a pixel.

It's accurate enough that scientists use it as a model parameter to run simulations. You're just handwaving here. It's about 1% and it's been that way for a while so there's no reason to assume just yet that it will be any different. And they have to assume because measuring the actual amount of increase or decrease isn't an easy task.

So you say, but what reason do we have to believe you?

"Botulinum toxin is a medication and a neurotoxic protein produced by the bacterium Clostridium botulinum, and is held to be the most toxic substance known to mankind with an LD50 of roughly 0.005-0.05 µg/kg"

source

You're surely not positing an entirely different, unidentified, natural source which has coincidentally manifested recently. That would be grasping at "unknown unknowns" beyond belief.

What?

 

[lomiller]

Against my will I ended up in a discussion about global warming the other night. 2 of my friends disagreed about this and the asked me about my opinion.
Now since global warming doesn't interest me that much I don't keep on the latest science and don't really know much. Anyway one of friends argument was that man made CO2 could not be the main culprit for global warming as the temperature had been cooling from the 1940s and until the mid 1970s and again since the start of the new millennium (or at least it was stagnated).
Since I was not too sure about this claim, I looked it up and according to NASA (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) temperature graph for the past 100 years. It looks like my friend is right about the temperature.
Now my question is rather simple, what is the caused for the cooling trend from ca. 1940 until the mid-70s and then the stagnating trend in the past 10 years or so?
Man made CO2 in all those years have been rising. My guess, without knowing anything about it, is that is have something to do with the sun.

P.S.: I am sure the answer that I am looking for is buried somewhere in this thread but I am really too lazy to read through 52 pages of posts to find it.

A more accurate description is that there was cooling in the 40’s and temperatures stayed roughly constant until the late 60’s. Some of this comes from the cooling effect of rapid re-industrialization in WW2, but more of it is simple cherry picking of starting point. The 30’s were an abnormally warm decade, that was above both the trend and model projections. By starting at such a “high point” you can create a false impression of cooling/no-warming in the period immediately following.

As I said though there was a real cooling effect going on thought the 40’s, that being the rapid industrial growth related to WWII. Industrial growth creates CO2 which has a warming effect and aerosols which have a cooling effect. Aerosols are actually the stronger of the two by a fair margin, but they are much shorter lived being completely gone within a decade or so where CO2 takes about a century to decrease by about 1/2 and up to 100 000 years to completely return to its original levels. This means rapid industrial growth causes short term cooling but long term warming.

There is also another lie you need to watch for. When discussing warming form the 30’s until today climate denier sources like to substitute lower 48 US temperatures for global temperatures. They do this because the abnormal warmth of the 1930’s was predominantly confined to this part of the US while this same part of the US is currently warming more slowly than the rest of the plant. In this region, and basically only this region, the 1930’s were about as warm as it is today even though globally it’s the last decade is warmer by a WIDE margin.