• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reality Check said:
Wrong:
  • The annual mean growth rate measured at Mauna Loa for 2007 was 2.14ppm.
  • From 1970 to 2000, the concentration rose by about 1.5ppm each year, but since 2000 the annual rise has leapt to an average 2.1ppm.
It is not linear as also explained in the Keeling Curve article.

(emphasis added)
Click to expand...

2.14 ppm/ 390 ppm x 100 = 0.54%

Oops, you're right, it's much lower than 1%! Thanks.
 
TShaitanaku said:
Ironically, the DSM-IV states that delusion is a belief that is either mistaken or not substantiated that is held with great confidence and surety.

I can and have provided peer-reviewed and compelling information and reference that supports that which I state. So far, despite your great personal conviction in the rectitude of your beliefs, you have not provided any evidences or substantive supports for your beliefs.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, it's a complete delusion to say it's "business as usual" or will continue "business as usual". I'm not sure why people continue to make this reference.
 
ThunderChunky said:
A constant percent increase is not linear. Imagine if it was a constant 100% increase each year, that would be a doubling every year... and obviously not linear.
Click to expand...

I hinted at that earlier as well, but it seems to have gone over his head as he has neither responded or altered his claim
 
lomiller said:
IOW their reporting it fine, your idea of “good reporting” is seriously flawed.
Click to expand...

Strawman. Go back and look, I said "balanced".

I know you and several others here don't feel the need for balanced reporting. There's a distinct bias towards your own version of how you see things. That's why I say it's alarmist.

The quality of the reporting has nothing to do with bias. You could probably make a case for bias generating very good reporting. It tends to be backed by passion.
 
lomiller said:
You have no evidence for which deaths are preventable and why.
Click to expand...

lol, that's because you're talking about hypothetical deaths. This is a whole new level of moving the goal posts. :D

If you're having trouble with this just tell me what these people are dying from exactly and I'll tell you exactly how it's preventable.

lomiller said:
What is your plan for preventing heat related deaths, make it illegal to be old or poor?
Click to expand...

It should be illegal to be too poor to afford heat in the winter a cooling in the summer if it's as essential to human existence as you are suggesting.

Mostly likely the root cause of people dying due to exposure is because they can't afford energy. They can't afford energy because alarmists are in a panic and driving the price higher than tulips.
 
3bodyproblem said:
None. We were talking about translating the effects of CO2 reduction on the environment to dollars and cents so people know what their money is buying environmentally.
Click to expand...

Who would talk about anything so silly?

People care about what they're buying, so if a carbon cost is included it will influence their choices, and price-competition will encourage low-carbon production. It's that simple.

You can't expect the general world population to start saving the environment, they have enough to contend with day-to-day. Like fuel and food prices, job-security, what economic future your children have. The price-mechanism is the easiest way to get things done.

Nothing serious will be done about AGW for a good while yet, of course. The purely reactive phase comes first.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Strawman. Go back and look, I said "balanced".
Click to expand...

Well it's good to know that you don't consider good reporting to be a virtue and are shooting for something lower. Regardless it's already been pointed out that the article in question accurately reported on the paper it was reporting on.
 
3bodyproblem said:
lol, that's because you're talking about hypothetical deaths.
Click to expand...


Projected death rates don't exactly fit the definition of hypothetical.

In any case it's clear you are trying to change the subject to run away from claims you can't support. You claimed a change in death rates I asked you for evidence. Are you going to provide evidence or not?
 
3bodyproblem said:
I said the concentration (ppm) increase is constant at approximately 1%
Click to expand...

You said:

The fact is the increase has been linear and approximately 1% per year.
Click to expand...



Linear and 1% per year are mutually exclusive, it cannot be both. Furthermore you had already made the linear claim multiple times so I can only conclude you are once again inventing your own "facts"
 
Pixel42 said:
This is what was actually asked (my bold):



Even if the forcing (the rise in CO2 levels) is and remains linear, neither of which appears likely to be the case, would it necessarily mean that temperature rise will also be linear? Surely that depends on the net effect of the various positive and negative feedbacks that kick in as a result of any forcing.
Click to expand...

Ah, but these are but a few of the assertions he has apparently made up from whole cloth as he refuses/cannot support his own claims.


keep in mind the definition
" - a belief that is either mistaken or not substantiated that is held with great confidence and surety."
 
3bodyproblem said:
I totally agree, it's a complete delusion to say it's "business as usual" or will continue "business as usual". I'm not sure why people continue to make this reference.
Click to expand...

Demonstrate the period when annually averaged atmospheric CO2 levels actually start declining, and I will agree that BAU no longer applies. Currently, however, even the rate of increase is still accelerating, which is very much BAU.
 
Earth’s hot past could be prologue to future climate - http://www2.ucar.edu/news/3628/earth-s-hot-past-could-be-prologue-future-climate

January 13, 2011


BOULDER—The magnitude of climate change during Earth’s deep past suggests that future temperatures may eventually rise far more than projected if society continues its pace of emitting greenhouse gases, a new analysis concludes. The study, by National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) scientist Jeffrey Kiehl, will appear as a “Perspectives” piece in this week’s issue of the journal Science.

Building on recent research, the study examines the relationship between global temperatures and high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere tens of millions of years ago. It warns that, if carbon dioxide emissions continue at their current rate through the end of this century, atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas will reach levels that last existed about 30 million to 100 million years ago, when global temperatures averaged about 29 degrees Fahrenheit (16 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels.

Kiehl said that global temperatures may gradually rise over the next several centuries or millennia in response to the carbon dioxide. Elevated levels of the greenhouse gas may remain in the atmosphere for tens of thousands of years, according to recent computer model studies of geochemical processes that the study cites.

The study also indicates that the planet’s climate system, over long periods of times, may be at least twice as sensitive to carbon dioxide than currently projected by computer models, which have generally focused on shorter-term warming trends...
Click to expand...
 
lomiller said:
Linear and 1% per year are mutually exclusive, it cannot be both. Furthermore you had already made the linear claim multiple times so I can only conclude you are once again inventing your own "facts"
Click to expand...

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?
 
CapelDodger said:
More to the point, you're wrong (again) : it isn't 1%, and a constant percentage rise is not linear anyway. You continue to compound your error. Also again.
Click to expand...

See the above post for clarification. I'm not sure what you guys aren't getting. If you find fault in what I've outlined please, point it out.
 
lomiller said:
Projected death rates don't exactly fit the definition of hypothetical.

In any case it's clear you are trying to change the subject to run away from claims you can't support. You claimed a change in death rates I asked you for evidence. Are you going to provide evidence or not?
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

hy·po·thet·i·cal - Of, relating to, or based on a hypothesis
You do know what the hypothesis here is right? That people will die from exposure to an extra 0.01 degrees per year due to global warming. It has happened yet and is based on a theory so it is very much hypothetical. You should be able to distinguish that from reality or something that has actually happened.

What do you want "evidence" of? I may have been mistaken so let's just say it's what we know, that 4 times as many people die from cold. That still means less people will die due to temperature change overall. That's a fact you have to deal with in your hypothetical.

It's obvious this is just a report intended to alarm people and not present the whole story.
 
3bodyproblem said:
2.14 ppm/ 390 ppm x 100 = 0.54%

Oops, you're right, it's much lower than 1%! Thanks.
Click to expand...
You are welcome.

But you are ignoring that from 1970 to 2000, the concentration rose by about 1.5ppm each year, but since 2000 the annual rise has leapt to an average 2.1ppm.
It is not linear as also explained in the Keeling Curve article.
There is an analysis here (CO2 shame) that clearly shows the rate increasing.
Any one who has a ruler can see that the Mauna Loa data is not linear by trying to wraw a line through all of the data points.
Though I would like to see a graph with Mauna Loa data's error bars shown. But maybe they are just too small to be shown.

Maybe I am assuming too much here: 3bodyproblem, do you own a ruler? :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom