Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Reality Check]

Whoops: got the description of a quadratic fit (x = a + bY + cy²) wrong in my last post.
a, b and c are actually found from minimizing the least squares .
Having a slope in the straight line fit to the differences shows that c is needed.

 

[BenBurch]

This seems appropriate; http://www.gocomics.com/tomtoles/2011/05/25

 

[Mikemcc]

What "bell curve" of possible weather events? Sounds made up. So does a mean temperature increase pushing it in any direction. So "evidence"?

There's a few papers cited in AR4 I might check out in the mean time.

What? Like this one for New York:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pdf/ne9.jfm.gif

Similarly - San Francisco:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pdf/sw5.jfm.gif

Seattle:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pdf/nw2.jfm.gif

Miami:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pdf/nw2.jfm.gif

Take a look at slide 13 of the following presentation...

http://www.emetsoc.org/annual_meetings/documents/presentations_2010/UC1_Simolo.pdf

 

[Furcifer]

It is indeed bizarre. You keep claiming that the rate of increase is linear. But the second graph you're shouting about here is not plotting the rate of increase, it's plotting the increase in the rate of increase. That is, it's showing that the gradient of the line is changing, which means that the rate of increase is not linear by definition. By agreeing that the increase in gradient is linear, you've just successfully debunked your own bizarre claim that the gradient is constant, yet you're still trying to insult everyone else. I don't know who you think you're fooling, but I very much doubt it's anyone other than yourself.

Yes, in terms of percentage. I said the percentage increase is linear. (You may remember, possibly because I've done this several times, {1%,1%,1%,1%...n} is linear at 1%. It's constant. Plain and simple. You may wonder "Gee, what's the rate or increase in this growth rate?" and the answer would be "1% every year".
Granted, I never calculated the slope of the graph, but from tshaitanaku's spreadsheet it should actually be about 0.5%. We've covered the discrepancy already.

Since we're all intelligent people, I had assumed apparently incorrectly, that since we're talking about the rate of increase, I didn't have to constantly reiterate this. Again, I think this is just intellectually dishonest, you keep changing the goal posts to fit the agenda driven "Oh noes! It's exponential!" fear mongering. Yes, the actual ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is growing at an exponential rate, we know this. It's to be expected given the population growth, an thus the end user of all the fossil fuels putting CO2 into the air is growing at an exponential rate (basic biology actually). But the change in growth rate is constant and approximately 1%.

I'm obviously not trying to fool anyone. I've maintained the change in growth rate is constant and 1% per year. It's NOT EXPONENTIAL, it's {1%,1%,1%,1%...n} And I totally agree that this 1% growth rate leads to an exponential growth in atmospheric CO2.

It's undebunkable.

 

[Furcifer]

A pity that you have no idea what the second graph is: It is the rate of increase per year. The STRAIGHT LINE is sloped.

lol, so is the line x=y, I suppose you think that's exponential as well?

(it's linear)

Its basic math - the graph shows an increase in the increase per year.
The Mauna Loa CO2 data does not vary linearly

It's basic math, graph, straight line, linear. "Linear" as in "line", like the line on the graph.

It is totally bizarre that you cannot understand that the second graph shows that there is an increase in the increase of CO2.

That's because it's a strawman. I've said this over, and over, and over again "it's a 1% increase every year in the increase". It's 1% every year, over and over again. That's linear.

Perhaps if you quit dodging the question and just plotted the simple graph I suggested you'd see it's linear. Try it (1990,1%) (1991,1%) (1992,1%) (1993,1%)

Try it, it's quite straight and hence "linear" I assure you. Of course you're so entrenched in this deception at this point you won't plot it, you'll plot the resulting increase in PPM "the maun loa data" as you keep saying and say it's not linear.

It's very strange.

What value do you think it should be?
How did you calculate it?
Can you cite where previously you stated the value?

It's an assumption based on the fact that we've replaced coal plants with wind turbines and solar farms and increased gas mileage and moved to CFL's while insulating our attics.

If we hadn't done these things the line would be steeper. It's very basic math.

There's no calculating it and that's my point. It may be a matter of it being too small of a difference, it may be a matter of a lag in CO2 due to sequestering or it may be some error in measurement.

Do you realize that any slope on the second graph means that there is an increase in the increase of CO2?

Do you realize it's about 1% every year over 30 some years and hence linear?

How about some basic maths. In a quadratic fit to data we have x = a + by + cy². Here

a is the intercept with the x axis ay y = 0.
b is the slope of a straight line fitted to the data.
c is the slope of a straight line fitted to the differences of the data. In this case the annual change in CO2.
​

You really have no idea what the graph is about: It is a graph from the Mauna Loa data. There is no BAU. it is the actual data.

Apparently you really don't know much about lines

[*]A % increase over the all of the data is not a trend. It is an average.

It's not over all of the data, it's year by year. which is what we've been talking about for weeks.

[*]Any % increase per year is not linear.

lol, it is if it's 1% every year! {1%,1%,1%...n} (1990,1991,1992,1993...n}

There's your data set, try plotting it an then we'll discuss if it's linear or not.

It is the same as compound interest where a future value (FV) comes from an percentage (i)applied to each value starting from a present value (PV) periodically for n periods

(the continuous limit of this is an exponential function)
[/LIST]

Nobody has argued it isn't compound, and in fact I've made mention that it is several times. It just isn't sinking it.

 

[Mikemcc]

Yes, in terms of percentage. I said the percentage increase is linear. (You may remember, possibly because I've done this several times, {1%,1%,1%,1%...n} is linear at 1%. It's constant. Plain and simple. You may wonder "Gee, what's the rate or increase in this growth rate?" and the answer would be "1% every year".
Granted, I never calculated the slope of the graph, but from tshaitanaku's spreadsheet it should actually be about 0.5%. We've covered the discrepancy already.

Since we're all intelligent people, I had assumed apparently incorrectly, that since we're talking about the rate of increase, I didn't have to constantly reiterate this. Again, I think this is just intellectually dishonest, you keep changing the goal posts to fit the agenda driven "Oh noes! It's exponential!" fear mongering. Yes, the actual ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is growing at an exponential rate, we know this. It's to be expected given the population growth, an thus the end user of all the fossil fuels putting CO2 into the air is growing at an exponential rate (basic biology actually). But the change in growth rate is constant and approximately 1%.

I'm obviously not trying to fool anyone. I've maintained the change in growth rate is constant and 1% per year. It's NOT EXPONENTIAL, it's {1%,1%,1%,1%...n} And I totally agree that this 1% growth rate leads to an exponential growth in atmospheric CO2.

It's undebunkable.

Except the rate of increase is NOT linear (for at least the third time of repeating). It's increasing. It has doubled since the 1960s:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/co2-shame/

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, in terms of percentage. I said the percentage increase is linear. (You may remember, possibly because I've done this several times, {1%,1%,1%,1%...n} is linear at 1%. It's constant.

We agree: The percentage increase used to predict the future CO2 concentrations in some older (pre-2000) models is constant, i.e. linear with a slope of zero. Using that assumption was equivalent to an exponential increase in the predicted CO2 concentration with time.

However this has nothing to do with the subject which is the Mauna Loa data: The Mauna Loa CO2 data does not vary linearly .

Granted, I never calculated the slope of the graph, but from tshaitanaku's spreadsheet it should actually be about 0.5%. We've covered the discrepancy already.

TShaitanaku did not really have a spreadsheet. He cited the data linked at the Mauna Loa monitoring site, did an anaysis of

• The first 10 years of data - "This gives us a average increase during that first decade of record keeping of about 0.0027 or 0.27% roughly half of the current rates of increase"
• The last 10 years of data - Fitting a line to the data is inappropriate.

You then took The last 10 years of data, averaged the % increase per year to get 0.5%.

You missed the point: The % increase per year varies. It starts as as a decadal average of 0.27% and increased to a decadal average of 0.5%.

I'm obviously not trying to fool anyone. I've maintained the change in growth rate is constant and 1% per year. It's NOT EXPONENTIAL, it's {1%,1%,1%,1%...n} And I totally agree that this 1% growth rate leads to an exponential growth in atmospheric CO2.

It's undebunkable.

That is correct: the simplistic outdated scenerio of a constant % increase per year does lead to a exponential growth in atmospheric CO2.
See the IPCC SAR of 1995 for the use of these 0.5% and 1% per annum GHG parameters.
This is undebunkable. .

Now if you were replying to your own post I suspect that the word alarmist would appear about here .
We have someone who is ignoring the current climate science methodology where scenerios for future CO2 concentrations are not based on this simplistic assumption. Using that assumption leads to a bad (worst?) case scenario (exponential growth). That seems an alarmist stance.
Current scenerios include real life economic factors.

 

[Furcifer]

lol "weather is not the climate" blah blah blah. When it's the coldest month on record that's "weather", when it's the warmest it's "climate".

Just remember, I said weather and you're giving me the Southern oscillations. So El Nino's are now weather events in your book. I'll reserve judgment until you guys site El Nino as climate events. Anyhow...

What? Like this one for New York:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pdf/ne9.jfm.gif

Similarly - San Francisco:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pdf/sw5.jfm.gif

Seattle:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pdf/nw2.jfm.gif

Miami:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pdf/nw2.jfm.gif

Take a look at slide 13 of the following presentation...

http://www.emetsoc.org/annual_meetings/documents/presentations_2010/UC1_Simolo.pdf[/QUOTE]

Again I'm speechless. You obviously don't understand what happens when the mean temperature increases. Yes, it does indeed shift the graph, but that's a relative shift.

Relative, as in the whole graph shifts. Or perhaps it would be easy for you to visualize if you just moved the temperature on the x-axis to the left about a degree or two and a half if we're talking about sensitivity.

Why would you think the red, yellow and blue lines wouldn't shift? If anything those bell curves would get flattened out, not shifted.

 

[BenBurch]

The mere fact that we are arguing with somebody over whether a visibly-curved trend is really a straight line shows how ridiculous this debate has become; Nobody except the trolls have any arguments to make, and their arguments are of the basic "white IS black" sort that never lead anywhere except frustration.

 

[lomiller]

Yes, in terms of percentage. I said the percentage increase is linear. (You may remember, possibly because I've done this several times, {1%,1%,1%,1%...n} is linear at 1%. It's constant. Plain and simple.

A logarithmic function plotted on log paper still comes out as a line, this doesn’t make it linear. This is similar to what you are doing here as a yearly 1% access is a logarithmic scale.

Secondly the % increase is not constant. It doesn’t change very rapidly but it is different now than it was in the in the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s.

 

[Mikemcc]

lol "weather is not the climate" blah blah blah. When it's the coldest month on record that's "weather", when it's the warmest it's "climate".

Just remember, I said weather and you're giving me the Southern oscillations. So El Nino's are now weather events in your book. I'll reserve judgment until you guys site El Nino as climate events. Anyhow...



Similarly - San Francisco:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pdf/sw5.jfm.gif

Seattle:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pdf/nw2.jfm.gif

Miami:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pdf/nw2.jfm.gif

Take a look at slide 13 of the following presentation...

http://www.emetsoc.org/annual_meetings/documents/presentations_2010/UC1_Simolo.pdf

Again I'm speechless. You obviously don't understand what happens when the mean temperature increases. Yes, it does indeed shift the graph, but that's a relative shift.

Relative, as in the whole graph shifts. Or perhaps it would be easy for you to visualize if you just moved the temperature on the x-axis to the left about a degree or two and a half if we're talking about sensitivity.

Why would you think the red, yellow and blue lines wouldn't shift? If anything those bell curves would get flattened out, not shifted.[/QUOTE]I understand it perfectly well thank you, clearly you don't. The La Nina and El Nino curves show the distribution changing. Funnily enough when the El Nino warming influence is present it shifts to the right...

when it shifts it will mean that more days exceed the temperature that you use to define a heatwave (the area under the curve above that point increases), also that fewer days are below the temperature used to define cold spells.

Why on earth would they flatten out? That would mean that if the mean temperature increased we would suffer more extremes both hot and cold. That is not bourne out by observations, as the graphs clearly show.

 

[CapelDodger]

Why would you think the red, yellow and blue lines wouldn't shift? If anything those bell curves would get flattened out, not shifted.

I would love to know what thought process lies behind that. It's by no means immediately obvious to normal minds.

By said process, if the mean falls, does the graph become more spiked? I'm intrigued. Is there some value at which the curve degenerates into a vertical line?

 

[Furcifer]

The mere fact that we are arguing with somebody over whether a visibly-curved trend is really a straight line shows how ridiculous this debate has become; Nobody except the trolls have any arguments to make, and their arguments are of the basic "white IS black" sort that never lead anywhere except frustration.

lol. Visibly curved? I beg to differ:

It's a straight line. It's linear. I can't believe I've been arguing this 3 weeks.

Typical alarmist derail, the issue isn't whether this line is straight or curved, it's about the slope.

 

[Furcifer]

A logarithmic function plotted on log paper still comes out as a line, this doesn’t make it linear. This is similar to what you are doing here as a yearly 1% access is a logarithmic scale.

Secondly the % increase is not constant. It doesn’t change very rapidly but it is different now than it was in the in the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s.

That's not log paper. Although you're almost correct, it is a linearization. So what?

 

[Furcifer]

Dodge noted. You failed once again to do a simple plot because you know it shows just how incorrect you really are.

Again I'm speechless. You obviously don't understand what happens when the mean temperature increases. Yes, it does indeed shift the graph, but that's a relative shift.

I said that.

(nm I see it's just your formatting)

Relative, as in the whole graph shifts. Or perhaps it would be easy for you to visualize if you just moved the temperature on the x-axis to the left about a degree or two and a half if we're talking about sensitivity.

Why would you think the red, yellow and blue lines wouldn't shift? If anything those bell curves would get flattened out, not shifted.

I understand it perfectly well thank you, clearly you don't. The La Nina and El Nino curves show the distribution changing. Funnily enough when the El Nino warming influence is present it shifts to the right...

Yes, but that's not a relative shift, it's a shift from the unadjusted mean. Global Warming means a new mean.

when it shifts it will mean that more days exceed the temperature that you use to define a heatwave (the area under the curve above that point increases), also that fewer days are below the temperature used to define cold spells.

Nonsense. It's a relative shift, the new "heatwave" will be warmer.

Why on earth would they flatten out? That would mean that if the mean temperature increased we would suffer more extremes both hot and cold. That is not bourne out by observations, as the graphs clearly show.

Actually I think that comes right from AR4.

You seem to forget the claim that global warming entails "higher highs" and "lower lows". Like you said, that basically stretches out the graph. The frequency has an associated period, and since the year isn't getting any longer I don't believe the area under the curve can get any larger.

I'd have to look into how the graph is generated to be certain.

 

[Cuddles]

lol. Visibly curved? I beg to differ:

[qimg]http://i55.tinypic.com/k9coyt.jpg[/qimg]

It's a straight line. It's linear. I can't believe I've been arguing this 3 weeks.

Neither can I. It's truly incredible that anyone could spend that long ranting about the wrong graph. As has been explained to you over and over again, that is not a graph of the CO₂ concentration. When people say that the increase in CO₂ concentration is not linear, pointing at that graph is utterly irrelevant.

Amusing that you continue to whine about "alarmist derails" though, given that the entire derail is a result of your refusal to look at the correct graph.

Typical alarmist derail, the issue isn't whether this line is straight or curved, it's about the slope.

No, the issue is about whether a completely different line is straight or curved. This graph is only relevant in that it gives a nice indication of just how curved the relevant line actually is.

 

[lomiller]

No, the issue is about whether a completely different line is straight or curved. This graph is only relevant in that it gives a nice indication of just how curved the relevant line actually is.

And the fact that it isn't:

It's constant. Plain and simple.

Tells us the curve of the releveant line is actualy increasing.

 

[Mikemcc]

Dodge noted. You failed once again to do a simple plot because you know it shows just how incorrect you really are.

What dodge? So far I'm the only one of the two of us that has provided any plots.

I said that.

(nm I see it's just your formatting)

Hmmm, no, it was a hang-over from your formatting in post the post before

Yes, but that's not a relative shift, it's a shift from the unadjusted mean. Global Warming means a new mean.

Nonsense. It's a relative shift, the new "heatwave" will be warmer.

What? So is a heatwave is defined as being above 30 deg C and then that area gets a new mean warmed by 1 deg C, then a heatwave is now defined as a temperature greater than 31 deg C. Rubbish, the definition remains unchanged at 30 deg C. It's just that more days exceed that! Are you trying to be deliberately dense?

Actually I think that comes right from AR4.

Citation please.

You seem to forget the claim that global warming entails "higher highs" and "lower lows". Like you said, that basically stretches out the graph. The frequency has an associated period, and since the year isn't getting any longer I don't believe the area under the curve can get any larger.

Citation please. What area under the graph, surely not under the entire graph (the sum of all outcomes)? The area under a graph exceeding a given value changes as it is displaced.

I'd have to look into how the graph is generated to be certain.

Here you go - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

 

[Trakar]

The mere fact that we are arguing with somebody over whether a visibly-curved trend is really a straight line shows how ridiculous this debate has become; Nobody except the trolls have any arguments to make, and their arguments are of the basic "white IS black" sort that never lead anywhere except frustration.

Indeed.

That said, lets see what's in the news
(besides all the tragic heartland disasters - My prayers and best wishes to all that live in those areas or have family and friends impacted by the storms that seem to be sweeping much of the nation.)

I know not many here are big fans of organized religion, but it is nice to see that a major influence in the lives of a couple billion people is acknowledging and acting in accord with leading scientific understandings. A Report by the Working Group Commissioned by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has been released entitled "Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene." While the opening prayer is a bit different for those of us used to more typical preambles in documents of scientific assessment and finding, it expresses considerations that most of us can probably support.

We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious
and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused
by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other
pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other
land uses. We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without
delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of
climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain
glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home.
By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility,
we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet
blessed with the gift of life.

We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet
receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink
as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect
the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant
us this wish.

Actually very good agreement with the science all the way through, but written in a very compelling and moving manner! Well worth a read, even for those who might generally find religion to be an offense to their sensibilities.
---------

And then there was the US National Academies of Science who recently called for: "ACTION NEEDED TO MANAGE CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS; U.S. RESPONSE SHOULD BE DURABLE, BUT FLEXIBLE"

WASHINGTON — Warning that the risk of dangerous climate change impacts is growing with every ton of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere, a National Research Council committee today reiterated the pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare to adapt to its impacts. The nation's options for responding to the risks posed by climate change are analyzed in a new report and the final volume in America's Climate Choices, a series of studies requested by Congress. The committee that authored the report included not only renowned scientists and engineers but also economists, business leaders, an ex-governor, a former congressman, and other policy experts....
(link to press release and report above)

--------------
Oh and while I generally try to stick to the science and leave the political and social commentary to those who seem to enjoy such much more than I, I did run across the following youtube video that I found literally Laugh Out Loud funny.

It features many prominent climate scientists and is a bit edgy in some of the language, but, for adults familiar with climate science and the public discussion it is an enjoyable waste of a few minutes,...yo, yo!

"I'm a climate scientist!"
NSFW - Language not suitable for work

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZxOlCN10&feature=player_embedded

 

[macdoc]

Directly attributable

Forest fires and climate change

Jill Colton, staff writer

May 26, 2011 — After a vicious round of wildfires incinerated the town of Slave Lake, Alberta, there's fear that fires of this magnitude or worse could happen again in the boreal forest more frequently. The Weather Network takes an in-depth look at the relationship between forest fires and climate change.


The boreal forest covers about one third of Canada and stretches across seven provinces. But according to academics, this vast area of land is quickly becoming a breeding ground for wildfires.

What is being dubbed as the disaster of a generation by Alberta's Premier -- the Slave Lake fire disaster may not be a one-off catastrophe. Research suggests that's it's not a matter of if, but when.

“It's going to happen again, it's just a matter of time. The risk is increasing in time, mainly due to climate change,” warns Dr. Mike Flannigan, Professor with the Department of Renewable Resources at the University of Alberta and Canadian Forest Service researcher.

There are a lot of fires across the landscape -- Dr. Flannigan says there's an average of 9,000 fires a year across Canada and they burn approximately 2 million hectares -- this number is steadily increasing.

Fires in the 1960's and 1970's charred about 1 million hectares of land in each year. “So it's already doubled in the last 40 years...and we've published work that shows this is directly due to human caused climate change,” says Dr.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/ne..._260511?ref=ccbox_weather_topstoriesFlannigan.