Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Mikemcc]

...
Cryptic diversion. Why do you think 30 years is regarded as a sensible period to find a detectable trend in climate? And why does the reason not apply to CO₂ emissions?
...

3BP only wants to restrict the test to the last thirty years because looking any further back blows his assertion of a linear percentage increase out of the water. A number of us have shown that the annual percentage increase in CO2 has doubled since 1960. He's trying to 'hide the increase'.

 

[steenkh]

A linear percentage increase is linear, plain and simple.

What is your point with this? Originally, you claimed that the increase was linear, and when your mistake dawned upon you, you rallied around percentage increase being linear, as if that makes sense. And why would that interest anybody?

You claim others to be dishonest, and yet you could not admit a plain error, but stuck to it for over a month, even though you perfectly well know what everybody else are talking about.

How does it feel to be a denialist, not just of the real state of the world, but even in the little things, such as that you made a mistake?

 

[Halsu]

Nobody said otherwise.

A linear percentage increase is linear, plain and simple. It's 1%,1%,1%,1%.

Nope, it's not. The yearly percentage compared to previous year might appear to stay the same (which doesn't even really do), but the more meaningful percentage compared to the starting point increases every year.

It's 1%, 1,01%, 1,02%, 1,03%, 1,04%, 1,05% etc.

 

[Trakar]

3BP only wants to restrict the test to the last thirty years because looking any further back blows his assertion of a linear percentage increase out of the water. A number of us have shown that the annual percentage increase in CO2 has doubled since 1960. He's trying to 'hide the increase'.

No quotes necessary it is stock denial of demonstrable science, which is what gives the advocacy their well deserved moniker.

 

[Furcifer]

3BP only wants to restrict the test to the last thirty years because looking any further back blows his assertion of a linear percentage increase out of the water. A number of us have shown that the annual percentage increase in CO2 has doubled since 1960. He's trying to 'hide the increase'.

That's incorrect of course, for a few reasons.

Most notably if you look at increase from 1958-1980 it was actually less than from 1980-2010. If you wanted to "hide the incline" you'd include the period from 1958-1980 obviously, that's basic math.

It's wrong for basic reason that the measures to curb CO2 have been more recent so that's naturally the time period you would choose if you wanted to observe the effect. The "typical" period of time chosen to observe changes in climate however is 30 years. This is about as short a period of time as one would chose in order for natural variations in climate to be smoothed out and not mistake something like solar variation or southern oscillations for changes in climate.

 

[Mikemcc]

That's incorrect of course, for a few reasons.

Most notably if you look at increase from 1958-1980 it was actually less than from 1980-2010. If you wanted to "hide the incline" you'd include the period from 1958-1980 obviously, that's basic math.

It's wrong for basic reason that the measures to curb CO2 have been more recent so that's naturally the time period you would choose if you wanted to observe the effect. The "typical" period of time chosen to observe changes in climate however is 30 years. This is about as short a period of time as one would chose in order for natural variations in climate to be smoothed out and not mistake something like solar variation or southern oscillations for changes in climate.

Firstly I didn't say 'hide the incline'.

I see you are now admitting that the rate of increase in CO2 emissions has increased since the 1960s. It's only taken a month for you to finally admit that.

30 years is taken as the minimum length of time to determine statistical significance in a measure of climate change for the reasons that you meantioned. It's not an excuse to ignore data that inconvieniently demolishes your claim. You are just cherry picking data to try and fit your claim despite repeated counters that show that you are wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

Then you're just plain wrong. I said (it) was increasing at a (constant) linear rate of approximately 1% per year...

So some unspecified "it" is increasing at constant (linear) rate of about 1% per year.

1. What is "it?
2. Where are your citations that "it" is currently increasing at about 1% per year.

If "it" is CO2 then you are wrong. CO2 is currently increasing at a rate of 0.5% per year (up from 0.27% in the 1960's).

I NEVER MENTIONED THE MAUNA LOA DATA. So stop saying I did. This was just an attempt to derail the discussion about what's being done to curb emissions and what effect it's having.

If you want to platform and fear monger about the "super exponential increase" in CO2 then feel free, this is the place for it.

The point is that I am ALWAYS BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE MAUNA LOA DATA.
I have no idea what you are talking about if it is not the Mauna Loa data that I have constantly been takling about.
Unless it is the outdated climate models that did use a constant % increase per year for the predicted increase in CO2.

I have never said that there is a "super exponential increase" in CO2. I think that there may be a quadratic increase in CO2 as shown by the Mauna Loa data.

It is actually you who is doing the fear mongering in this thread ! A constant % increase is faster than quadratic. It is in fact a "super exponential increase" in the continuous limit.

Interesting aside: It may turn out that the IPCC was really conservative with their future CO2 emission scenerios. Based on a news article so far but IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has released unpublished estimates of 2010 global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and the news is not good. Between 2003 and 2008, emissions had been rising at a rate faster than the IPCC worst case scenario. However, the global recession slowed the emissions growth considerably, and in fact they actually declined slightly from 29.4 billion tons (gigatons, or Gt) CO2 in 2008, to 29 Gt in 2009.
However, despite the slow global economic recovery, 2010 saw the largest single year increase in global human CO2 emissions from energy (fossil fuels), growing a whopping 1.6 Gt from 2009, to 30.6 Gt (the previous record annual increase was 1.2 Gt from 2003 to 2004). As illustrated in Figure 1, in 2009 we had dropped into the middle of the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) scenarios, but the 2010 increase has pushed us back up toward the worst case scenarios once again.

 

[Furcifer]

Firstly I didn't say 'hide the incline'.

Why are you trying to differentiate "incline" from "increase"?

I see you are now admitting that the rate of increase in CO2 emissions has increased since the 1960s. It's only taken a month for you to finally admit that.

For a month I've been saying it's increasing at 1%, what are you talking about?

30 years is taken as the minimum length of time to determine statistical significance in a measure of climate change for the reasons that you meantioned. It's not an excuse to ignore data that inconvieniently demolishes your claim. You are just cherry picking data to try and fit your claim despite repeated counters that show that you are wrong.

How does the increase prior to 1980 "demolish" my claim that in the last 30 years it's been a constant 1%?
I'm afraid none of your above post makes any sense.

 

[Furcifer]

So some unspecified "it" is increasing at constant (linear) rate of about 1% per year.

1. What is "it?
2. Where are your citations that "it" is currently increasing at about 1% per year.

If "it" is CO2 then you are wrong. CO2 is currently increasing at a rate of 0.5% per year (up from 0.27% in the 1960's).

I don't understand this game you're playing. If you don't know what "it" is then you don't know what we're talking about. I don't see how you can not understand what "it" is after 4 weeks. I learned electrodynamics in 12 weeks, but you can't figure out what "it" is?
The funny thing is you don't even need to know what "it" is, just that "it" increases every year 1%.

The point is that I am ALWAYS BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE MAUNA LOA DATA.

So was I, but just not as it appears in the graph. We applied some math skills and came up with "it", this 1% per year increase.

I have no idea what you are talking about if it is not the Mauna Loa data that I have constantly been takling about.

Apparently you're limiting yourself to just the picture. That might be a good thing.

Unless it is the outdated climate models that did use a constant % increase per year for the predicted increase in CO2.

What do you know about "outdated climate models"? Which ones are "outdated"? What does that even mean?

I have never said that there is a "super exponential increase" in CO2. I think that there may be a quadratic increase in CO2 as shown by the Mauna Loa data.

Someone else did, I don't know what super exponential means, I never happened across it in my studies. Sounds alarmist to me.

It is actually you who is doing the fear mongering in this thread ! A constant % increase is faster than quadratic. It is in fact a "super exponential increase" in the continuous limit.

Continuous limit? What does that mean?

Interesting aside: It may turn out that the IPCC was really conservative with their future CO2 emission scenerios. Based on a news article so far but IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News

So much for carbon trading

Unpublished estimates Awesome, there's your climate science in a nutshell.

Meanwhile, you've struck upon an important part of the problem facing global warming, in that measuring CO2 emissions are almost impossible with the current methods. They really need to develop a better and more consistent way of doing this.

 

[OldBloke]

Nobody said otherwise.

A linear percentage increase is linear, plain and simple. It's 1%,1%,1%,1%. That's why I keep saying it's intellectually dishonest to move the goal posts and say "No it isn't it's exponential, 385, 388, 392, 398..." and then point to a graph that doesn't show the percentage, but the actual ppm.

I'm disappointed people would do this, and continue to do this.

1% of what?
If you keep adding 1% of the 1958 figure, it's linear.
If you keep adding 1% of each previous year's figure it's exponential, like compound interest.

That is the math everybody else uses, except you apparently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_growth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

The first graph on this page is an example of an exponential curve.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/co2-shame/

 

[Furcifer]

1% of what?

The rate of growth.

If you keep adding 1% of the 1958 figure, it's linear.
If you keep adding 1% of each previous year's figure it's exponential, like compound interest.

1% of what?

That is the math everybody else uses, except you apparently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_growth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

The first graph on this page is an example of an exponential curve.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/co2-shame/

No it's the same math. (it's not this difficult either)

The rate of growth is increasing at (approximately) a constant 1%, every year. That's why it's been used in numerous climate models. It's a pretty simple concept. You take the rate of growth, ~3 ppm/year and add 1%. Bob's your uncle.

We're talking about the percentage increase in the rate of growth. The best way for you to graph it and see would be to ask yourself "By what percent did the rate of growth increase from 1980-1981? 1% How much from 1981-1982? 1%, and from 1982-1983? Yep you guessed it 1%.

Now plot it, start with the year ending (1981,1%) (1982,1%) (1983,1%) (1984,1%) (1985,1%) (1986,1%)

What do you get? You get a horizontal line. Try it!

 

[Mikemcc]

Why are you trying to differentiate "incline" from "increase"?

So you should be, you made the change, not me. If you quote somebody, it should be verbatim.

For a month I've been saying it's increasing at 1%, what are you talking about?

Define 'it'. Clearly it's not CO2 as that has been shown to have been increasing at a compounded rate of 0.25% (approx) in 1960, increasing to a compounded rate of 0.5% (approx) in recent years, indicating that the compounded rate of increase in CO2 has increased over that time scale. This means that you can't necessarily draw a conclusion that the compounded rate of increase is now linear over the last 30 years given that it has increased over a longer period. In fact Tamino's graph in his CO2 Shame post indicates that the rate of increase is still increasing!

How does the increase prior to 1980 "demolish" my claim that in the last 30 years it's been a constant 1%?
I'm afraid none of your above post makes any sense.

No, it just shows that you have moved the goalposts.

 

[Furcifer]

So you should be, you made the change, not me. If you quote somebody, it should be verbatim.

I didn't quote you, there's actually a function built into the forum software for that. The quotations were to suggest it's similar to the climatgate emails "hide the decline". I thought that would be obvious.

Define 'it'. Clearly it's not CO2 as that has been shown to have been increasing at a compounded rate of 0.25% (approx) in 1960, increasing to a compounded rate of 0.5% (approx) in recent years, indicating that the compounded rate of increase in CO2 has increased over that time scale. This means that you can't necessarily draw a conclusion that the compounded rate of increase is now linear over the last 30 years given that it has increased over a longer period. In fact Tamino's graph in his CO2 Shame post indicates that the rate of increase is still increasing!
No, it just shows that you have moved the goalposts.

1960? What does 1960 have to do with the last 30 years?

1980 to present, that's the timespan pertinent to this discussion (2010-30=1980). I can't believe this needs explaining.

 

[Trakar]

...Interesting aside: It may turn out that the IPCC was really conservative with their future CO2 emission scenerios. Based on a news article so far but IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News

A leading international scientific organization conservative in their estimates?! Who woulda thunk it?!

Did you happen to catch this little bit that hit the news?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-05/uoc--wgw053111.php
With global warming, Arctic access will diminish by land but improve by sea

(...)
Winners are expected to be coastal communities, coastal resource-extraction operations, tourism, fishing, and shipping concerns, the researchers say. Potential losers include inland mining and timber operations, inland oil and gas drilling, and smaller inland communities, often inhabited by indigenous peoples. Even northern Canada's famed Tibbitt–Contwoyto "diamond road," said to be the world's most lucrative ice road, is expected to suffer, according to the researchers.

The findings appear in the current issue of the peer-reviewed scholarly journal Nature Climate Change.

"Popular perception holds that climate warming will mean an opening up of the Arctic, but our study shows that this is only partly so," said co-author Laurence C. Smith, a UCLA professor of geography and author of "The World in 2050: Four Forces Shaping Civilization's Northern Future" (Dutton Books, 2010). "Rising maritime access for ships will be severely countered by falling vehicular access on land."
(...)
With an overall anticipated temperature increase of 3.6 to 6.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050 — and an even sharper increase of 7.2 to 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter — climate change is expected to have more dramatic effects in the Arctic than anywhere on Earth.

A major casualty will be temporary ice roads, according to the study. Constructed across frozen ground, lakes, rivers and swampy areas using compacted snow and ice and applied sheets of ice, these roads currently provide access to vast swaths of inland terrain where the construction of all-weather roads is not economically viable.

As a result, all eight countries that border the Arctic — Canada, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States — are expected to experience declines in winter-road land accessibility. Losses in access range from 11 percent to 82 percent, depending on the area, the geographers calculate.(...)

Oh, and I also ran across this most interesting and relevent article as well:
"BEYOND 2 DEGREES CELSIUS"
(http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson290511.pdf)

Not from a source I'd usually review, but it is prepared by a paleoclimatologist, ...

...According to the IPCC AR4 (2007) [2] mean global land/ocean temperature since 1880 has risen by about +0.8 oC, which translates to more than +4 oC rise in the polar region of northern Canada, Greenland and Siberia [3] (Figure 2), triggering feedback-amplified ice melting accelerating between 2002 and 2010 [4] (Figure 3) and related sea level rise at a rate of 3.0 +- 0.4 mm/year between 1993-2010 (Figure 4A). Melting of Arctic ice leading to increased evaporation can result in the advance of cold fronts into the north Atlantic (Figure 4B). The measured global warming of +0.8 oC is lagging behind the +1.1 oC rise required by the energy imbalance (Figure 1B), a lag attributable to the buffering effect of the oceans. The temperature rise lag period has been estimated as 35 years [5]...
...However,
a rise beyond 2 oC may lead to tipping points in the atmosphere/ocean system [10]. As stated by the NASA/GISS climate science group [11], Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 425 +- 75 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects...

Give them a read!!

 

[Mikemcc]

I didn't quote you, there's actually a function built into the forum software for that. The quotations were to suggest it's similar to the climatgate emails "hide the decline". I thought that would be obvious.

Really? That wouldn't be why I used that phrase (that you changed) would it? I assume you must be American with your understanding of irony...

1960? What does 1960 have to do with the last 30 years?

1980 to present, that's the timespan pertinent to this discussion (2010-30=1980). I can't believe this needs explaining.

Because its only you that wants the discussion restricted to the last thirty years. When the view point is extented a further 20 years it clearly shows a an accelerating rate of increase of CO2 concentration. That is something that you are desperate to avoid as it goes against your contention of a linear 1% compounded increase in 'it' - a substance that you haven't defined, but is clearly not CO2, because your figures would be wrong (1% is not the same as 0.25 - 0.5%), yet you have referred to ppm increases. You can't have things all your own way allowing yourself to pick and choose what bits are 'right' for your arguement, especially when the figures you use are incorrect!

Even if we restrict the observation to the period 1980-2010, the rate of increase of CO2 has increased from 1.2 ppmv/yr to 1.9ppmv/yr. The rate of increase has accelerated!

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/dco2.jpg (fifth time of posting it up!)

 

[BenBurch]

I expect that we will see, finally, the creation of hover-trucks to transport people and material over the muskeg, TShaitanaku.

 

[lomiller]

.

Most notably if you look at increase from 1958-1980 it was actually less than from 1980-2010.

Because it's changing. AKA it's not linear. The rate of emissions is accelerating. Even your irrelevant metric is changing and therefore not linear.

 

[Furcifer]

Really? That wouldn't be why I used that phrase (that you changed) would it? I assume you must be American with your understanding of irony...

Because its only you that wants the discussion restricted to the last thirty years.

By "restrict" you mean to not change what I said? Yah, this is ironic.

When someone says "such and such happened in the last 30 years" it isn't "restricting" the conversation. It'd defining the parameters.

 

[Reality Check]

I don't understand this game you're playing. If you don't know what "it" is then you don't know what we're talking about.

We have been talking about the Mauna Loa data.
This is the non-linear increase in CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa.
This is the data that

So was I, but just not as it appears in the graph. We applied some math skills and came up with "it", this 1% per year increase.

What is the data that your "we" applied some mathe skills to and come up with 1%?
Who is this "we" that came up with 1% per year increase?

In this forum we have come up with a 0.27% increase per year at the start of the Mauna Loa data and a 0.5% increase currently. Neither number is close to 1%.

Apparently you're limiting yourself to just the picture. That might be a good thing.

No I am not. I am limiting this discussion to the actual data as measured at measured at Mauna Loa.
I am "limitinng" myself to all of the scientific evidence that shows that CO2 is increasing.

What do you know about "outdated climate models"? Which ones are "outdated"? What does that even mean?

You do not know the meaning of outdated ? It means out of date.

Someone else did, I don't know what super exponential means, I never happened across it in my studies. Sounds alarmist to me.

Everything seems alarmist to you.
But you seem ignorant that people can search threads - guees who is the first person I can find to use the term "super exponential"?

People disagreed, but got stuck on whether it was linear as a percentage increase or super exponential as a yearly particulate increase.

Continuous limit? What does that mean?

It means the limit as the discrete steps in the the current 0.5% increase per year are made smaller until you have a continuum. This is 0.5% increase per year is compounding. The limit as we get more and more steps is the exponential function:

Unpublished estimates Awesome, there's your climate science in a nutshell.

Not published yet. Awesome, there's your knowledge of science in a nutshell .

Meanwhile, you've struck upon an important part of the problem facing global warming, in that measuring CO2 emissions are almost impossible with the current methods. They really need to develop a better and more consistent way of doing this.

There is no problem in measuring CO2 emissions. All you do is measure the CO2 and then measure it again later. The difference is the CO2 emission.

However you probably mean measuring man-made CO2 emissions. That is impossible. We would have to install CO2 monitors on every source of CO2 in the planet, e.g. every power station or cement factory or car.
That is why estimates are used, e.g. simply put: the CO2 emitted by power stations is the average emission (as measured from a sample) multiplied by the number of power stations. Ditto for cars. Ditto for cement factories. Etc.

It sounds like you have some specific objections to the way that these esitmates are made. Perhaps you can list them and show how thay effect the estimates?

 

[Furcifer]

Because it's changing. AKA it's not linear. The rate of emissions is accelerating. Even your irrelevant metric is changing and therefore not linear.

No, for the last 30 years the rate of increase in GHG emissions has been increasing at 1% per year.
Had things we not taken measures to curb CO2 emissions it would be higher.

This is hard to understand. You seem to be confusing yourself worrying about whether this is exponential growth or linear as a function of the concentration or a function of the rate. Is this something you need to understand the question presented, a proper graph? Or is the concept of linearization making this difficult? Either way it isn't central to the issue.