Cite your calculations from that second graph that gives about 1%
Yah but it's right enough and I said that 3 weeks ago. (you'd have to use some mad skillz to figure out the increase is about 1% per year from that graph, but it's possible.
Cite your calculations from that second graph that gives about 1%.
The needed math skills are not great. The second graph in
CO2 shame is labelled quite clearly: CO2 grows in ppm/yr vertically versus year horizontally. The fitted line starts as ~0.8 ppm/yr on a base of ~320 ppm, i.e.
a 0.25% increase in 1958. It increases to a ~2.1 ppm/yr on a base of ~370 ppm, i.e.
a 0.57% increase in 2010.
The rate of increase in the % increase is then found by dividing by 32 years: 0.01% ppm/yr^2.
And like I said 3 weeks ago, expressed as a yearly percentage increase in rate it's linear and 1% every year. Approximately.
And like everyone here knows,
you have been wrong since 14th May 2011 since
- The rate of increase is not linear.
- It is not about 1% every year.
It started as as a decadal average of
0.27% and increased to a decadal average of
0.5%. That is not linear. That is not about 1%.
It does expressed as a percentage. This is why scientists use a 1% increase in rate. Although it isn't ideal it's effective.
No it is not. No they do not (any more). Learn about the use of past and present tense in English. Scientists used to use a constant % increase per year in CO2 concentrations to predict CO2 concentration in oler nodels (pre-2000). They not longer do this. Scientists now use the
SRES scenarios mostly.
...snipped more %1 stuff...
Mathematics is a powerful tool, and one such tool is called linearization. You can take a curve and make it straight.
That is not what
linearization is. No one converts the Mauna Loa data to a straight line.
No competent scientist would be dumb enough to attempt to do fit the the Mauna Loa data with a straight ine (which is hopefully what you are trying to say). They can see just by putting a ruler against the graph that no straight line can fit the data within its uncertainties (or even within the annual variations!).
Of course they aren't identical. The increase fluctuates from month to month and year to year.
And that is why TShaitanaku fited a starigth line to the first 10 years andf the last 10 year of data:
%3Cbr%20/%3E/showthread.php?postid=7228564#post7228564"]The measurements at Mauna Loa start at one rate in the first decade and end up at a higher rate in the last decade (do not have the same rate throughout the 30 year period).
True, and the true anthropogenic amount is unknown. Either way it affects the climate.
What is a "true" amount?
If you mean exact then no measurment ever gives a true amount since they all have uncertainties.
The anthropogenic amount is known (in the sense of estimated). The "true" anthropogenic amount can never be known.
The nice thing about science is that you do not need to know the true measure of something in order to use it, e.g. no one knows the true mass of the electron but the measured mass is often used.
Or maybe you think that only things that are measured directly are "true". IN that case you are going to be sadly disappointed with just about every measurement that modern scientists make. Distances measured using laser beams not tape measures! Masses not weighed using scales!
And yet a lot of model predictions are based on this and then reported as if it were actually business as usual.
And yet a lot of model predictions
were based on things like this and then reported as if it were actually business as usual.
It's a simplification none the less.
I agree - the
past use of a constant % increase was a simplification. Luckily science undergoes this little thing called progress
eye-poppi) and that simplification is not used much anymore.
The scenario happens to match the existing data in this case.
What scenerio? The BAU scenerio that does not exist in the
SRES scenarios in 2000 (see also
Emissions Scenarios)?
Perhaps I should have made this more clear. I believe the "business as usual" scenario arose from tuning the models to the existing data and then letting them run forward.
Much like lining up the sights on a gun, once everything is in line they run the model and follow the trajectory to the target. Typically the target is a doubling of CO2 but not always.
[/quote]
I believe that you are incorrect.
The sequence looks like:
- The model is constructed and tested ("tuned") against existing data. There are a number of these models that have already been tested and continue to be tested as more climate data is collected.
- A scenario is selected for future emissions (not only CO2) given a story line about the future. There are about 40 different scenerios groupled into families. For example (see SRES scenarios)
The A1 family of scenarios is characterized by:
- Rapid economic growth.
- A global population that reaches 9 billion in 2050 and then gradually declines.
- The quick spread of new and efficient technologies.
- A convergent world - income and way of life converge between regions. Extensive social and cultural interactions worldwide.
- The model is run using that scenerio to make future predictions.
There is no target for CO2 amounts. The emissions scenario determines how the CO2 concentration varies.
An interesting aside: "While some scenarios assume a more environmentally friendly world than others, none include any climate-specific initiatives, such as the
Kyoto Protocol."
) that says I do understand it. So you obviously don't know what you're talking about. You are mistaken about what I understand and you are mistaken about a yearly 1% increase being linear (or constant if you prefer).
Agreed!
).