Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[BenBurch]

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.

You'd be amazed at how effectively they can de-water a mine even in adverse conditions. Again, it all depends on what it is worth to you. I have some quarries near here that are all well below the water table. If they stop pumping them, they fill with water in a month or two and you have a very deep lake. And they do all that pumping for something worth as little as sand, gravel, and limestone.

 

[Furcifer]

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

I haven't "restricted" the conversation. You're free to discuss it. 1958 just doesn't have anything to do with the last 30 years.

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 didn't choose it, this was from something I read. Thus your position is wrong and not based in fact.

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 fomenting of a Business As Usual situation.

lol, I'm surprised someone on this board could fall for something like this. All this "manifesto" is is a cold read on the climate change debate.

When I get a chance I'll create an alarmist manifesto. This should be entertaining...

 

[Mikemcc]

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.

You seem to be a tad confused. I've (sadly) gone back through the posts. You started the ball rolling on this silliness back in post 2045:

Even at the current 1% increase per year I believe model estimates would put a +10C increase in average temperature somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 years. Extrapolating from the most recent NASA model I saw it's closer to 500 years.

You honestly think we can't figure out how to reduce CO2, and I mean from the atmosphere not from emissions, by the year 2600

I believe it was as little as 150 years ago "the experts" said it was physically impossible for the human body to move in a vehicle faster than a mile per minute (that's 60 mph!). Again, historically, the experts have grossly underestimated what we can achieve as a race. We could if we wanted to have a paradigm shift right now and probably begin to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in 20 years. It wouldn't be easy, but not impossible.

Compounding on it:

The fact is the increase has been linear and approximately 1% per year. The fantasy is part of the alarmism, while the increase is linear, most likely as a result of the measures being taken on a global scale, the fantasy is this exponential "business as usual" mongering.

It isn't "business as usual". Take a look around, things have changed.

And again, bringing the last 30 years into the discussion for the first time.

Bull pucky, Launa Loa has 1.5 ppm increase over the last 30 years. It's linear. (and approximately 1%, I'll let you do the math)

More confusion:

It can be when it's approximate and averaged over 30 years.

Let's say in 1970 it was 345 ppm and it went up 3 ppm. That's about 1%
Then in 1971 it was 348 and went up 2.5 ppm. That's about 1%
Then in 1972 it was 350.5 and went up 2.3 ppm. That's about 1%
Then in 1973 it was 352.3 ppm and it went up 4 ppm. That's about 1%

It's very simple math so I'm not sure what you don't understand about this? Maybe you aren't getting the idea of approximation and the fact that the increase is so small compared the actual amount of CO2 found in the air naturally? Or maybe you just aren't considering how this gets averaged over the 30 year period, and it may have started much below 1% then risen to as high as 4% some year and still remain at 1% over the 3 decades in question?

Finally followed by a Road to Damascus moment:

Yes, and I agree this is where I was mistaken. I confused a linear rate of increase with a linear increase.

Then you spent the next 4 pages going back to a linear increase rather than a linearly increasing rate of increase of CO2. Though finally you do appear to have become a bit more consistant about it. In post 2117 you brought in data from the 1970s, so it seems that you are quite happy to bring in data outside your imposed window of 1980-2010 when it suits you. In general it is perfectly acceptable to introduce data from outside an observational window when it is pertinent to the arguement (widening the window out to the 1960s showed that the rate of increase was not constant)

Are you kidding me? I can't tell if you're being serious or if this is in jest. Obviously all of those have to be calculated first and then the temperature change calculated. It's the first step, the second is finding the temperature change. It's inherently easier to do 1 step than 2.

They're not, the physics may be well known but it's extremely complex and uses some of the biggest super computers in the world. I could calculate the CO2 from emissions using a pad of paper and a TI-36. I'm not following your logic here at all.

It's called trending and it's a perfectly valid scientific method.

It's been pointed out that it's not 1% though, it's closer to 0.5%. I'm curious why they would over estimate it by this much. It appears to be a very "worst case scenario".

More denial. I've already cited 1, here's another :http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/tk0401.pdf and another : http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/3638/MITJPSPGC_Rpt11.pdf?sequence=1 and another: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDkQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.143.8265%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=rTPPTdyKOom4twfI-oj2DQ&usg=AFQjCNHd2Tg6wuV6H-DvPjpbRGJshQGfDQ&sig2=Oe_cz8bgpLdwvxr20QH95g&cad=rja and another : http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEkQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjack.pixe.lth.se%2Fkfgu%2FKOO090_FKF075%2FArtiklar%2FP02.pdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=rTPPTdyKOom4twfI-oj2DQ&usg=AFQjCNE7CqOUiTSdt4aZJSxPua98sJj6Pw&sig2=wHicR7nj9D_13xk61oYm9Q&cad=rja and another :http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/3632/MITJPSPGC_Rpt17.pdf?sequence=1

You guys don't really seem to know much about climate models at all. It's almost as if all you do is read about the extreme predictions based on worst case scenarios at RealCrapClimate.com and link them here. So much for skepticism.

No it's 0.5%. The models run 70-80 years and get a sensitivity of about +2.8C. If it stays at 0.5% how long is that? 200 years? That's a long, long time to fix this problem.

I don't know what you're asking? I put it in quotes because CO2 is a harmless gas, but some people are alarmed by the harm it could cause indirectly.

I still don't know what you're talking about. I've read this a few times now and it doesn't make sense. What's a "coincidentally manifested natural source" mean?

Then there is your fixation on 1% per year increase in CO2 level. I took a look at the links you posted. One, looking at effects on hurricanes used it as a simplification. Others used it as part of a series of runs (in one a control used a constant 350ppm concentration as well as a 1% per year rate of increase, another used a range of rates of increase ranging from 0.25 to 4.0% per year!)

After that I started to lose the will to live from chasing those moving goalposts.

 

[Reality Check]

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?

Other than thet fact that 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 is a figment of you imagination?

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

Still wrong:

1. I am not trying to fit any curve to the Mauna Loa data.
2. There is no "1% yearly increase" in the Mauna Loa data.

I am noting what is obvious to anyone with eyes (and a ruler) - a straight line cannot be fitted to the Mauna Loa data.

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

Even dumber than being unable to understand that there is no constant 1% increase !

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

And and even more idiotcially they can draw the vertical line x=1 and see it's quite straight.

Wow, 3bodyproblem: Have you just realized that drawing a straight line produces a straight line!

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.

The end is that it is not a constant 1% increase. That just doesn't make any sense. It's the most egregious example of ignorance I can think of.

Produce some models then and show me what they used. I know you're lying and don't have any idea.

I know that you are lying because I have cited the scenerios that are used in the computer models. Try reading and remembering some of this thread.

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

I state that you make an incoherent statement and you make it into a dumb assertion about my knowledge of climate change.
Maybe you can anwser:

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 in doing a literature search (added since you could not undersatnd this), 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.

Or actually write what you meant coherently in the first place.

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.

lol, another dumb alarmist reference!
Why? Because that's what you cannot get past - that there are people in this forum with brains who think about the issue rather then go with knee-jerk reactions.

In fact "business as usual" is supported by the scientific data as you have just stated. The IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News (unpublished estimates of 2010 global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions) that you seem to be ignoring supports that the actual emissions are at least BAU.

 

[Furcifer]

Other than thet fact that 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 is a figment of you imagination?

No it's a "typical" value used in climate models to represent to percentage increase in emissions rate every year.

Still wrong:

1. I am not trying to fit any curve to the Mauna Loa data.
2. There is no "1% yearly increase" in the Mauna Loa data.

I am noting what is obvious to anyone with eyes (and a ruler) - a straight line cannot be fitted to the Mauna Loa data.

lol, that's because you don't use a ruler, you use math.

Even dumber than being unable to understand that there is no constant 1% increase !

This is a typical value, it's a rough estimate that closely resembles the actual data.

And and even more idiotcially they can draw the vertical line x=1 and see it's quite straight.

I'm assuming this was meant to be ironic?

The end is that it is not a constant 1% increase. That just doesn't make any sense. It's the most egregious example of ignorance I can think of.

It's a typical value, your objection to it's use is as irrelevant as your hand waving.

I know that you are lying because I have cited the scenerios that are used in the computer models. Try reading and remembering some of this thread.

Dodge noted.

I state that you make an incoherent statement and you make it into a dumb assertion about my knowledge of climate change.

It's the logical conclusion based on your continued confusion. Otherwise you would have figured it out.

Or actually write what you meant coherently in the first place.

It's perfectly cogent. A linear 1% increase means it constantly increases at 1%. That's 1% every year for 30 years.

lol, another dumb alarmist reference!
Why? Because that's what you cannot get past - that there are people in this forum with brains who think about the issue rather then go with knee-jerk reactions.

Like this gem? lol.

In fact "business as usual" is supported by the scientific data as you have just stated. The IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News (unpublished estimates of 2010 global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions) that you seem to be ignoring supports that the actual emissions are at least BAU.

Rubbish. It's clearly not "business as usual". This is just an alarmist rant used as part of the fear mongering prevalent in the discussion on Global Warming.

 

[Furcifer]

Then there is your fixation on 1% per year increase in CO2 level.

That's a lie. It seems everyone else is fixated on the 1%. I could care less. The point was the increase has been fairly steady over the last 30 years. It's less than it would have been under a "business as usual" scenario.

I'm fascinated by how strongly people are trying to maintain this "business as usual" fantasy. Is this a tenet of the alarmist manifesto?

 

[CapelDodger]

In fact "business as usual" is supported by the scientific data as you have just stated. The IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News (unpublished estimates of 2010 global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions) that you seem to be ignoring supports that the actual emissions are at least BAU.

One has to wonder what the heck isn't as usual.

Explosive economic growth in China was new twenty years ago but is completely normal now, and they did it the old way - coal. And while they are surging ahead with alternative power it's from too low a base to power the growth (there are some rainfall-related problems with hydro as well) so the old way is still expanding. Business as usual for the last two centuries.

There's another climate conference later this year, I don't even care enough any more to know where. There'll be no "World Leaders" in attendance, they got bitten at the Copenhagen farce and will be shy for a while yet. Business as usual since diplomacy was invented (which is one heck of a long time).

IPCC reports are never welcome, which is why they get ever more widely spaced. The whole point of a committee is that forming it can be ppresented as action, and it kicks a problem into the long grass in the hope that it will go away. Many apparent problems do. Some turn out to be actual. ("If you see ten problems coming down the road towards you, nine will fall into the ditch before they arrive." Attributed to Calvin Coolidge, but he was so lazy I suspect he had it ghosted. I can see some wisdom in it, though.)

The only real action on offer is (as it was in the 70's) argued on energy security, not on CO₂ emissions. Unlike the 70's, Peak Oil makes it a real challenge this time.

 

[CapelDodger]

That's a lie. It seems everyone else is fixated on the 1%. I could care less. The point was the increase has been fairly steady over the last 30 years. It's less than it would have been under a "business as usual" scenario.

I'm fascinated by how strongly people are trying to maintain this "business as usual" fantasy. Is this a tenet of the alarmist manifesto?

What's not usual? Kyoto?

 

[Reality Check]

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!

Just noticed this quite dumb thing.
You assert without evidence that the Mauna Loa data growth rate has a 1% increase per year and want to do a graph plotting 1% per year. Of course you get a horizontal line !

 

[Reality Check]

No it's a "typical" value used in climate models to represent to percentage increase in emissions rate every year.

No it's an "imaginary" value that you assert is used in climate models to represent to percentage increase in emissions rate every year.

lol, that's because you don't use a ruler, you use math.

Lol - the ruler says you are wrong. The math confirms that you are wrong.

This is a typical value, it's a rough estimate that closely resembles the actual data.

You still to are unable the grasp the simple fact that 1% does not "resemble" the actual data.
The actual data starts at a rate of 0.27 % and is currently at a rate of 0.5%.

I'm assuming this was meant to be ironic?

No it is serious. Your inability to see that drawing a straight line results in a straight line is serious.
We are talking about the Mauna Loa data. It is not linear. The increases in CO2 per year vary from 0.27% at the start in 1958 to 0.5% currently.

Dodge noted.

Inability to remember or search the thread noted.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
I know that you are lying because I have cited the scenerios that are used in the computer models. Try reading and remembering some of this thread.

None of these scenerios use a 1% annual increase in CO2.
SRES scenarios

It's perfectly cogent. A linear 1% increase means it constantly increases at 1%. That's 1% every year for 30 years.

Wrong: the Mauna Loa data has been collected for 50 years. At no time has there been a 1% increase in any year.
You have gone from incoherent back to consistently wrong.

And yet more ranting about "alarmist" stuff .


One more time:

1. The Mauna Loa data shows clearly that CO2 is increasing non-linearly. A child with a ruler can verify this. The math shows this (CO2 shame).
2. It is a reasonable assumption that the rate of increase is increasing linearly. See the trend line in the second graph of CO2 shame. N.B. This does not meant that the assumption is correct - a polynomal or power law line might fit better.

In any case: There is no constant 1% increase per year of CO2 shown by the Mauna Loa data.

 

[Furcifer]

Then there is your fixation on 1% per year increase in CO2 level.

I didn't notice this at first because I assumed you understood what was being discussed here, but not only is this incorrect it may be the root cause of why you and a few others don't understand this simple concept.

"Emissions" aren't the CO2 level. The word "emissions" actually refers to a rate, in CO2 terms this would be gigatons per year. This is not a level and the 1% doesn't apply, at least directly, to the level. This 1% we're (I'm) talking about applies to the rate of emissions.

Since emissions are given already as a rate, you may understand it better if you think of it as a rate of the rate.

I hope finally this is a concept you can understand. It's important that you don't continue to think of this as applying to the CO2 level.

 

[Trakar]

You'd be amazed at how effectively they can de-water a mine even in adverse conditions. Again, it all depends on what it is worth to you. I have some quarries near here that are all well below the water table. If they stop pumping them, they fill with water in a month or two and you have a very deep lake. And they do all that pumping for something worth as little as sand, gravel, and limestone.

I'm not sure we are thinking of similar situations,...where are they going to pump the water to? They are creating the lowest ground for tens, if not several 10s of kilometers or more and the ground is becoming more sludge than soils and frozen aggregates. Maybe not so much in the oil sands, as the in the diamond mines, but any significant impact at all adds to the costs and expenses reducing profits in a politically devisive pursuit where national and international pressures are going to continue to mount in coming decades. And as the alternatives take over and demand drops, so are prices. It isn't going to pay to extract oil from these difficult conditions and most of the cheap easy oil is gone, so we are left with a steep step, the demand will be too low to generate the scale of production that is necessary to generate cheap oil from these exotic sources, and so we will have comparatively expensive oil for a low demand (compared to today) market that is more plastics, lubricants and byproducts than fuels.

 

[Trakar]

I haven't "restricted" the conversation. You're free to discuss it. 1958 just doesn't have anything to do with the last 30 years.

Please provide the supportive evidences for the assertion that the current climate and the conditions associated with the climate of the last thirty years is completely unrelated to the climate and conditions associated with the climate of the preceding climate continuum

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 didn't choose it, this was from something I read. Thus your position is wrong and not based in fact.

If this be the case, the only error in my interaction seems to have been in presuming that an argument you presented as your own considered and supported opinion was in fact well supported, or even personally well-considered, opinion.

lol, I'm surprised someone on this board could fall for something like this. All this "manifesto" is is a cold read on the climate change debate.

Actually, its based primarily on the practices and tactics employed by the tobacco companies and their paid scientists and "think-tank" PR/activism, but given the broad spectrum of similarities in tactics and even personnel (in some cases), your confusion is understandable

When I get a chance I'll create an alarmist manifesto. This should be entertaining...

You parrot enough of the fringe catastrophisms from crank and extremist positions as it is, but I don't expect my protestations are likely to prevent you from continuing to do so,...so by all means, present your manifesto,...er, this will actually be "your" considered and supported opinion this time,...right?

 

[Mikemcc]

I didn't notice this at first because I assumed you understood what was being discussed here, but not only is this incorrect it may be the root cause of why you and a few others don't understand this simple concept.

"Emissions" aren't the CO2 level. The word "emissions" actually refers to a rate, in CO2 terms this would be gigatons per year. This is not a level and the 1% doesn't apply, at least directly, to the level. This 1% we're (I'm) talking about applies to the rate of emissions.

Since emissions are given already as a rate, you may understand it better if you think of it as a rate of the rate.

I hope finally this is a concept you can understand. It's important that you don't continue to think of this as applying to the CO2 level.

Now you're changing the goalposts yet again! Originally it was the annual increase, then you saw your error and corrected it to the annual rate of increase, even though the figure of 1% is incorrect. Now you are saying is the rate of emissions. All of which you haven't backed up with any actual data!

I understand perfectly what the rest of us are discussing, it seems that you are actually working to your own, constantly shifting, view!

Please provide a citation which shows that the rate of global emission growth can be approximated to 1% yr^-1.

 

[Furcifer]

Just noticed this quite dumb thing.
You assert without evidence that the Mauna Loa data growth rate has a 1% increase per year and want to do a graph plotting 1% per year. Of course you get a horizontal line !

What's dumb about this value? It's an accurate way of determining the increase in rate of GHG gas emissions from year to year. So well that actual climate scientists use it so frequently they refer to it as "typical".

This increase wasn't pulled out of the air (er..well it was actually) it's based on observations, and that includes the Mauna Loa data.

I think your confusion lies in your misunderstanding the difference between rate and what's shown on your little graph. It may do you well to stop looking at the graph and consider the raw data.

 

[Furcifer]

No it's an "imaginary" value that you assert is used in climate models to represent to percentage increase in emissions rate every year.

Again this is incorrect. You've been shown peer reviewed science that clearly indicates the value and it's usage.

Lol - the ruler says you are wrong. The math confirms that you are wrong.

You haven't even drawn the proper graph.

You still to are unable the grasp the simple fact that 1% does not "resemble" the actual data.
The actual data starts at a rate of 0.27 % and is currently at a rate of 0.5%.

This is the "typical" value used. You don't have the "actual" data and are obviously unable to calculate it yourself.

No it is serious. Your inability to see that drawing a straight line results in a straight line is serious.
We are talking about the Mauna Loa data. It is not linear. The increases in CO2 per year vary from 0.27% at the start in 1958 to 0.5% currently.

You keep mistaking a picture you found for "the data". The picture is just a representation of the data. One of many.

Wrong: the Mauna Loa data has been collected for 50 years. At no time has there been a 1% increase in any year.
You have gone from incoherent back to consistently wrong.

The Mauna Loa data is only part of the 1%. As has been mentioned numerous times and you fail to recognize this is for all GHG's.

And yet more ranting about "alarmist" stuff .

Again more frantic hand waving over something as simple as a 1% yearly increase in rate. It's typical of alarmists, it needs pointing out

One more time:

1. The Mauna Loa data shows clearly that CO2 is increasing non-linearly. A child with a ruler can verify this. The math shows this (CO2 shame).
2. It is a reasonable assumption that the rate of increase is increasing linearly. See the trend line in the second graph of CO2 shame. N.B. This does not meant that the assumption is correct - a polynomal or power law line might fit better.

In any case: There is no constant 1% increase per year of CO2 shown by the Mauna Loa data.

Again this 1% is all GHG's and not just the Mauna Loa data. You continue to make this basic mistake.

 

[Furcifer]

Please provide the supportive evidences for the assertion that the current climate and the conditions associated with the climate of the last thirty years is completely unrelated to the climate and conditions associated with the climate of the preceding climate continuum

Nonsense, it's clearly indicated by defining the interval, 30 years.

Anything outside the interval is irrelevant, that should be obvious to anyone.

If this be the case, the only error in my interaction seems to have been in presuming that an argument you presented as your own considered and supported opinion was in fact well supported, or even personally well-considered, opinion.

No, your error is mistaking a question for an argument.

Actually, its based primarily on the practices and tactics employed by the tobacco companies and their paid scientists and "think-tank" PR/activism, but given the broad spectrum of similarities in tactics and even personnel (in some cases), your confusion is understandable

It comes as no surprise you're very well versed in propaganda tactics. I found this common amongst alarmists in general. Propaganda is the alarmist MO.

You parrot enough of the fringe catastrophisms from crank and extremist positions as it is, but I don't expect my protestations are likely to prevent you from continuing to do so,...so by all means, present your manifesto,...er, this will actually be "your" considered and supported opinion this time,...right?

Indeed, talking with alarmists one becomes quickly familiar with claims of catastrophe and the coming Apocalypse. As a skeptic, it behooves us to be familiar with all kinds of crazy claims. Climate change alarmists are no different than religious freaks or psychics making outrageous claims here on the JREF.

 

[Furcifer]

Now you're changing the goalposts yet again! Originally it was the annual increase, then you saw your error and corrected it to the annual rate of increase, even though the figure of 1% is incorrect. Now you are saying is the rate of emissions. All of which you haven't backed up with any actual data!

I understand perfectly what the rest of us are discussing, it seems that you are actually working to your own, constantly shifting, view!

Please provide a citation which shows that the rate of global emission growth can be approximated to 1% yr^-1.

Edited by LashL: 

Moderated thread

It was pointed out almost a month ago that the Mauna Loa data was showing an approximate increase of 0.5%, the discrepancy between that and the typical value of 1% was accounted for by estimating the effect of all GHG's in terms of CO2.

You're probably unaware that there are other gases in the atmosphere that behave similar to CO2, and their effects can be more or less pronounced.

As a simplification their effectiveness(resulting radiative forcing) is estimated in terms of CO2. This is commonly referred to as "Global Warming Potential"

Carbon dioxide as the base line has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 1. Methane has a GWP anywhere from 72-7.6 depending on how long of a time interval we choose.

Hope this helps.

 

[Furcifer]

I see from reading the 30 year time span is particularly relevant because of the anomaly that occurred in 1980.

From 1959 to 1979 the reported rate of increase in industrial emissions was nearly constant at 4%. (This comes from Keeling himself, I suppose he should be made aware of this new JREF math that prevents a constant percentage increase!)

The rise in atmospheric CO2 was in proportion to the reported industrial emissions until 1980 when there was a sharp increase in rate until 1988 after which there was a significant decrease.

 

[BenBurch]

Folks, we can only discuss this 1% stuff so long - it's clear who is right and that nobody is going to admit to being wrong.