Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

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

The "data" and the picture you've fixated on are two different things.

Do you understand what linearization is? Do you understand the "Mauna Loa" data can be linearized? Do you understand I was basically talking about the linearized Mauna Loa data over the last 30 years and how scientists use is as a parameter?

More importantly, do you understand either way you want to look at it (people seem to understand graphs than "data") the fact that been about 1% per year is a result of the measures taken, it isn't "business as usual" and had measures not been taken it would be greater than 1% per year?

Edited for moderated thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Trakar]

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

LOL, using what for fuel?

I'd think a new breed of truck would be a better bet, something with big fat tires and a wide wheelbase to spread the load over much greater surface area. I'd be more interested in seeing how they continue to mine as these large open pits become mudpits and lakes.

 

[Trakar]

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.

But, as demonstrated, it not only has "happened in the last thirty years," it has continued to happen at an accelerating rate over the last thirty years. It is only through gross distortion of the data and disengenuous twisting of the science and maths that one can claim otherwise.

 

[Trakar]

...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...

simplistic and unrealistic, at best.

Not even approximately correct, as demonstrated repeatedly over the last month or so. When you first began claiming "typical" I directed you to the methodology sections of several studies which confirmed that the process of used for some benchmarking senarios involved using simplified variables and interaction rates (such as combining all GHGs into a simplified single factor - CO2 equivilant - or posited various increase rates - or differing climate sensitivity ratios), this allowed the researchers a background of modelled senarios with which to compare the real world data and trends. Perhaps we need to go back and work for a clearer understanding of the differences between Senarios and Predictions?

 

[Trakar]

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

re·strict - Limit something, esp. an activity, to (a particular place, time, or category of people)

pa·ram·e·ter - (in general use) A limit or boundary that defines the scope of a particular process or activity

 

[Mikemcc]

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.

Well done for dodging my assertion that it has changed even within the period that you are determined to stick to!

Nor was it what you said when you actually started this silliness. You decided to change the goalposts when it was shown that you were wrong when we first started posting up the Tamino CO2 Shame post.

 

[Furcifer]

But, as demonstrated, it not only has "happened in the last thirty years," it has continued to happen at an accelerating rate over the last thirty years. It is only through gross distortion of the data and disengenuous twisting of the science and maths that one can claim otherwise.

A constant 1% increase in the rate is an acceleration. Nobody has claimed otherwise.

I think you're getting stuck on the picture, people seem to be assuming because a line drawn through some data points is straight means it isn't accelerating. That's simply not the case.

 

[Furcifer]

Perhaps we need to go back and work for a clearer understanding of the differences between Senarios and Predictions?

Only if you think it will help you answer the question that was initially posed.

 

[Furcifer]

re·strict - Limit something, esp. an activity, to (a particular place, time, or category of people)

pa·ram·e·ter - (in general use) A limit or boundary that defines the scope of a particular process or activity

The subtle nuances of the English language are at times lost on some posters. I see you've cherry picked a definition to help feign your confusion.

restrict: To keep or confine within limits.
parameter: A limit or boundary that defines the scope of a particular process or activity

The subtle difference here being the difference between define and confine.

The last 30 years is the period of interest. I thought I made that clear by saying "In the last 30 years..." In fact I'm pretty sure that's blatantly clear.

 

[Furcifer]

You decided to change the goalposts when it was shown that you were wrong when we first started posting up the Tamino CO2 Shame post.

lol, I've never changed the goal posts. I said the last 30 years. I said 1%. I said the rate. (You) added another 20 some years. (You) started talking about ppm instead of the rate.

This is some monumental hand waving to avoid the real question; has anything we've done in the last 30 years had an effect on the amount of CO2 in the world, or is it business as usual.

Eventually the hand waving will stop and you're going to have to admit this "business as usual" fantasy is just alarmist talk. It's not business as usual and it hasn't been for quite some time. Business as usual is a "scenario" and not a "prediction".

See tshaintanku for clarification on the difference.

 

[Kumar]

Simply, whether modernization is increasing global warming--fully or partly?

 

[Reality Check]

The "data" and the picture you've fixated on are two different things.

You are wrong. There is no "data" - there is actual Mauna Loa data.

There are the two graphs in CO2 shame which you seem still confuded about

1. The actual Mauna Loa data ("CO2 is rising faster now that it was just a few decades ago.")
2. The annual change in the actual Mauna Loa data with a trend line added.
   

   Thinking more about the second graph in CO2 shame suggests the source of your misconception: you may think that the line in it is the best fit curve to the data, i.e. the author has consdiered various fits (linear, polynomial, power series, exponential) and the best fitting one is a line.
   But the author states:
   

   Clearly the annual change in CO2 concentration fluctuates. A lot. But it’s consistently positive, CO2 is growing. And there’s a trend there as well as fluctuation, an upward trend, because the rate of increase is itself increasing. I’ve superimposed a trend line on the above graph.

Do you understand what linearization is?

I do. You do not understand that it is not fitting a straight line to data: linearization

In mathematics and its applications, linearization refers to finding the linear approximation to a function at a given point.

Do you understand the "Mauna Loa" data can be linearized?

Can you understand that the Mauna Loa data can be linearized (a straight line fitted to any point in the data set)? Can you understand that this is not what a competent scientist would do to show that the data follows a linear trend?
Can you understand that this has even dumber than trying to fit a straight line to data that is obviously incapably of being fitted with a straight line?
That is something a high school student with a ruler can see.

Do you understand I was basically talking about the linearized Mauna Loa data over the last 30 years and how scientists use is as a parameter?

I understand that it is ignorant to talk about nonexistent "linearized Mauna Loa data".
I understand that it is ignorant to ignore the first 20 years of Mauna Loa data.
I understand that you still are ignorant of the fact the scientists used to (i.e. in the past) use a contant annual percentage increase in CO2 as input to their computer models. They no longer use that outdated prediction.

More importantly, do you understand either way you want to look at it (people seem to understand graphs than "data") the fact that been about 1% per year is a result of the measures taken, it isn't "business as usual" and had measures not been taken it would be greater than 1% per year?

Totally importantly, do you understand that statement is quite incoherent?

• What measures?
• What graphs?
• What "data"?
• Where is the evidence that these measures caused "1% per year" (whatever you mean by that)?

What I understand is that I can find no scientific evidence that the current CO2 measures have had any effect on the the current 0.5% increase per year in CO2.

The actual estimates of man-made CO2 emissions are currently at the upper limits of the scenarios of man-made CO2 emissions. 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.

P.S. "business as usual" does not exist. Various authors use varous scenerios that they label as BAU.

 

[Mikemcc]

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.

My bold - for once you are getting close, though you are still a factor of two out.

...
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
...

(((1.9 - 1.2)/31)/1.2)*100% = 1.9%

 

[BenBurch]

LOL, using what for fuel?

I'd think a new breed of truck would be a better bet, something with big fat tires and a wide wheelbase to spread the load over much greater surface area. I'd be more interested in seeing how they continue to mine as these large open pits become mudpits and lakes.

Heavy oil if nothing else - much oil is too heavy to refine properly, but will burn in a gas turbine like UP used on its locomotives in the 50s and 60s. Remember it doesn't matter what fuel costs, it matters that it costs less than what the transportation is worth to you. And we will likely not run out of such marginally useful oil soon.

 

[lomiller]

No, for the last 30 years

Most curves can be approximated as linear if you look at a short enough period. You need to look at all the relevant data before deciding whether to use a linear approximation and when you do that even your useless metric no-one sensible would ever use is clearly not linear and of course the real relevant metric is best described as exponential.

 

[Furcifer]

You are wrong. There is no "data" - there is actual Mauna Loa data.

There's no "data" there's data. Yah, that makes perfect sense.

There are the two graphs in CO2 shame which you seem still confuded about

1. The actual Mauna Loa data ("CO2 is rising faster now that it was just a few decades ago.")
2. The annual change in the actual Mauna Loa data with a trend line added.

1. 
   
   Two graphs, one data set. I don't know what kind of "distinction" you're trying to make here
   

I do. You do not understand that it is not fitting a straight line to data: linearization

How hard is it to "fit" 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 to a straight line?

What you're trying to do is fit this 1% yearly increase to a curve. Of course that defeats the purpose, but whatever.

Can you understand that the Mauna Loa data can be linearized (a straight line fitted to any point in the data set)? Can you understand that this is not what a competent scientist would do to show that the data follows a linear trend?

I don't really care, although it appears pretty important to you. This fixation is amusing.

Can you understand that this has even dumber than trying to fit a straight line to data that is obviously incapably of being fitted with a straight line?

Even dumber than this derail over a constant 1% increase?

That is something a high school student with a ruler can see.

And they can draw the horizontal line y=1 and see it's quite straight.

I understand that it is ignorant to talk about nonexistent "linearized Mauna Loa data".

No to continue to talk about it as if you don't understand is. I think everyone understands if something is constantly 1 it's linear. Whether it's a percentage, or a percentage of a rate or a percentage of an acceleration is really irrelevant.

I understand that it is ignorant to ignore the first 20 years of Mauna Loa data.

To what end? So you can disagree with it being a 1% increase for 30 years? That just doesn't make any sense. It's the most egregious example of goal post shifting I can think of.

I understand that you still are ignorant of the fact the scientists used to (i.e. in the past) use a contant annual percentage increase in CO2 as input to their computer models. They no longer use that outdated prediction.

Produce some models then and show me what they used. I know you're lying and don't have any idea. All you know is that it's been suggested it isn't the best approximation.
I showed you it's "typical". You show me where it says it isn't any longer typical or show several examples that don't.

And please, it's obvious if the study is looking at different rates of increase this wouldn't apply.

Totally importantly, do you understand that statement is quite incoherent?

• What measures?
• What graphs?
• What "data"?
• Where is the evidence that these measures caused "1% per year" (whatever you mean by that)?

What I understand is that I can find no scientific evidence that the current CO2 measures have had any effect on the the current 0.5% increase per year in CO2.

You don't know much about climate change then. Finally you admit it. Thank you.

P.S. "business as usual" does not exist. Various authors use varous scenerios that they label as BAU.

lol, and that's my point, it doesn't exist and yet you can find hundreds of references to "business as usual" in this forum. Why? Because that's what alarmists like to claim is happening. Or at the very lest infer it.

 

[Furcifer]

Most curves can be approximated as linear if you look at a short enough period. You need to look at all the relevant data before deciding whether to use a linear approximation and when you do that even your useless metric no-one sensible would ever use is clearly not linear and of course the real relevant metric is best described as exponential.

If I'm talking of events in recent history that have attempted to curb emissions why would I talk about the Cretaceous period

It's only after the energy crisis in the 70's that anyone really began to consider slowing the flow of fossil fuels.

That's why the last 30 years is relevant, and that's why talking about what was going on in the 50's is simply ridiculous. It has absolutely no bearing on the conversation.

Why this even needs explaining is beyond me. And for weeks on end? Bizarre to say the least. Slow month in news I guess.

 

[Trakar]

The subtle nuances of the English language are at times lost on some posters. I see you've cherry picked a definition to help feign your confusion.

restrict: To keep or confine within limits.
parameter: A limit or boundary that defines the scope of a particular process or activity

The subtle difference here being the difference between define and confine.

The last 30 years is the period of interest. I thought I made that clear by saying "In the last 30 years..." In fact I'm pretty sure that's blatantly clear.

I chose the applicable definitions for the discussion at hand if you have preferred definitions that clarify and support your conflations, please present them.

That you have chosen a 30 year period and then distorted the data within that period in a attempt to make it fit some improper conclusion that you asserted and then couldn't distance yourself from is obviously of little relevence to you, but the fact that your assertions, conflations and distortions have repeatedly been demonstrated as such, and yet you continue to chase your own tail repeating them as if they'd be acknowledged upon repetition,... is a schtick that has lost all of its amusement factor.

I am reminded of the bullet point denialist guidelines manifesto. I generally don't approve of blog presentation of science and simply am not into the "social" aspects of blogging so I rarely visit such, but I was recently sent to "The Common Sense Canadian" by a messageboard respondant on AOL where I ran into this list of denier commonalities:

...The mechanics of creating unfounded doubt are fairly clearly understood:

• Allege or imply a conspiracy and argue that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than evidence.
• Use fake or selected experts to support the doubt.
• Select only the evidence that reinforces the doubt. Continue advertising this evidence even after it has been discredited - a lie repeated often enough begins to sound true. Never mention the other overwhelming body of supportive evidence.
• Discredit the science by attacking the character of the scientists.
• Amplify the importance of a mistake. Focus on a trivial error to discredit a huge body of credible research and findings.
• Create standards of certainty that science may not be able to meet. If those standard are met, then create others that are more stringent. Always keep alive the doubt.
• Use logical fallacies. For example, scientists collaborate on climate research and attend international meetings, therefore they have conspired together to make global warming a socialist conspiracy to undermine free-market capitalism.
• Exaggerate differences of opinion. Manufacture doubt by portraying scientists as so divided on details that they seem to disagree on basic principles. Propagate doubt and confusion by insisting that these minor differences be publicized. Insist that dissident and minority views, regardless of their credibility, receive a hearing equal to the scientific consensus.

When confusion reigns, people revert by default to their old patterns of behaviour. Instead of embracing new insights and ideas, they continue doing what they have been doing, whether this be buying the same products, consuming the same amounts of energy or inflicting the same damage on nature. Change is invited by some measure of certainty. Any justification for innovation is subverted by doubt...
http://thecanadian.org/k2/item/784-shades-of-green-manufactured-doubt

the fomenting of a Business As Usual situation.

 

[Trakar]

lol, I've never changed the goal posts. I said the last 30 years. I said 1%. I said the rate. (You) added another 20 some years. (You) started talking about ppm instead of the rate.

This is some monumental hand waving to avoid the real question; has anything we've done in the last 30 years had an effect on the amount of CO2 in the world, or is it business as usual.

Eventually the hand waving will stop and you're going to have to admit this "business as usual" fantasy is just alarmist talk. It's not business as usual and it hasn't been for quite some time. Business as usual is a "scenario" and not a "prediction".

See tshaintanku for clarification on the difference.

Senario - A plausible and often simplified description of how the future may develop, based on a coherent and internally consistent set of assumptions about driving forces and key relationships.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/annex1sglossary-p-z.html

Prediction - A prediction is a statement or claim that a particular event will occur in the future in more certain terms than a forecast. The etymology of this word is Latin (from præ- "before" plus dicere "to say").
http://prediction.askdefine.com/

Business As Usual, most closely approximates what has and is occurring, with little or no sign that there is any letting up on the fossil fuel accelerator which would be indicative of a trending toward a less than BAU emissions senario.

 

[Trakar]

Heavy oil if nothing else - much oil is too heavy to refine properly, but will burn in a gas turbine like UP used on its locomotives in the 50s and 60s. Remember it doesn't matter what fuel costs, it matters that it costs less than what the transportation is worth to you. And we will likely not run out of such marginally useful oil soon.

If we are looking for trackless trains, there is little reason not to simply use fuel cells and H2 the big problem with H2 for transportation is the bulk of the fuel, with trains and ships this isn't as big an issue so long as you have a cheap source for the H2. IIRC, there are several fuel cell systems that run off of ethanol. And speaking of H2, there's always dirigibles,...but none of this is gonna keep the mud and water out of those open pit mines in the once frozen tundra.