Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Mikemcc]

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?

You are the one that raised that figure and have attached it (mistakenly) to annual CO2 increase, then to rate of CO2 increase, then to total GHG emissions. Yet you have completely failed to provide a source for that value apart from 4 of 5 papers about how it was used in some outdated models, not any real data.

So, yet again, please provide a citation that one of your chosen metrics is increasing at 1% yr^-1.

If you are going to go for total GHG emissions, how are you factoring in the GWP for each of those gases?

As for business as usual - last year was predicted to show a reduction in emissions due to the economic slowdown. Yet it didn't due to growth in China and India. Very much business as usual. The rate of increase in CO2 concentration has been steadily increasing since the 1960s and even steadily increased through your chosen window of 1980 to 2010. Very much business as usual...

 

[Mikemcc]

Nothing on that page says anything about the rate of increase in emissions. You willfully continue to overlook the difference between the rate of increase in emissions and the concentration.

My bold

Take a look at methane for instance, from 700ppm to (using the lowest value) 1745ppm - an increase of 149%. Hardly 1% per annum...

OK, so you want to look at emissions:

CO2
Methane - Nice and linear there, not!

 

[Reality Check]

It's been a month and you still feign confusion over what the 1% increase is regarding? I think you're just being dishonest.

I am not confused: I have consistently taken it to be a 1% compounding increase in CO2. That is what you have cited papers on in the past. That is the topic in my posts that you have not corrected for a month now.

But lets us clear this up now and forever: 3bodyproblem, What is increasing by 1% per year (emissions, CO2, GHGs)

 

[Reality Check]

I'm still confused why you continue to discuss the Mauna Loa data if you think it doesn't apply?

I will continue to discuss the Mauna Loa data if you think it applies.

But you did not answer the question: 3bodyproblem, What is increasing by 1% per year (emissions, CO2, GHGs)?

 

[Furcifer]

You are the one that raised that figure and have attached it (mistakenly) to annual CO2 increase, then to rate of CO2 increase, then to total GHG emissions. Yet you have completely failed to provide a source for that value apart from 4 of 5 papers about how it was used in some outdated models, not any real data.

So, yet again, please provide a citation that one of your chosen metrics is increasing at 1% yr^-1.

If you are going to go for total GHG emissions, how are you factoring in the GWP for each of those gases?

As for business as usual - last year was predicted to show a reduction in emissions due to the economic slowdown. Yet it didn't due to growth in China and India. Very much business as usual. The rate of increase in CO2 concentration has been steadily increasing since the 1960s and even steadily increased through your chosen window of 1980 to 2010. Very much business as usual...

You're still fixating on this 1%, I know it's approximate and I know it may be outdated and I know it may or may not include all GHG's.

I don't care.

If you're saying it's business as usual prove it. I'm saying it isn't because I only have to go to my car and see it takes less fuel today than it did 30 years ago. I only have to look to the horizon to see wind turbines and solar panels that weren't there 30 years ago.

I'm really curious what this business as usual fantasy is really about. The more I look into this the more I'm getting the feeling business as usual is the population of the Earth growing and more and more people with a fuse panel in their homes.

I'm not the one using a term that I don't fully understand. This is an alarmists claim that no one here can properly define, but they have no problem using in conversation.

 

[Furcifer]

My bold

Take a look at methane for instance, from 700ppm to (using the lowest value) 1745ppm - an increase of 149%. Hardly 1% per annum...

OK, so you want to look at emissions:

CO2
Methane - Nice and linear there, not!

You still aren't looking at the rate of increase in emissions. I can only lead you to water here, I obviously can't make you drink.

 

[Furcifer]

I will continue to discuss the Mauna Loa data if you think it applies.

But you did not answer the question: 3bodyproblem, What is increasing by 1% per year (emissions, CO2, GHGs)?

The growth rate in GHG emissions.

It was less than 1% in most of the 80's and 90's, then from 2000-2005 it jumped up to around 2.0%. I'm not sure what it's been since 2005, I believe it's down but I'm not sure.

I also believe it's been averaged out of the last 30 years because that's a typical interval to discuss changes in climate.

 

[DC]

You're still fixating on this 1%, I know it's approximate and I know it may be outdated and I know it may or may not include all GHG's.

I don't care.

If you're saying it's business as usual prove it. I'm saying it isn't because I only have to go to my car and see it takes less fuel today than it did 30 years ago. I only have to look to the horizon to see wind turbines and solar panels that weren't there 30 years ago.
I'm really curious what this business as usual fantasy is really about. The more I look into this the more I'm getting the feeling business as usual is the population of the Earth growing and more and more people with a fuse panel in their homes.

I'm not the one using a term that I don't fully understand. This is an alarmists claim that no one here can properly define, but they have no problem using in conversation.

sounds scientific.
in Bejing there are a huge number of cars that were bikes 30 years ago.

many people that didn't have AC 30 years ago have one today.

while one car used more 30 years ago, more families have 2 or more cars today.

a few posts ago you were making alot claims with your 1% linear number, and you failed to backup any of your claims and suddenly you dont know what is actually is etc. pretty telling.

 

[Mikemcc]

The growth rate in GHG emissions.

It was less than 1% in most of the 80's and 90's, then from 2000-2005 it jumped up to around 2.0%. I'm not sure what it's been since 2005, I believe it's down but I'm not sure.

I also believe it's been averaged out of the last 30 years because that's a typical interval to discuss changes in climate.

Surprise, surprise, you have, yet again, failed to produce any data to back up this claim.

• Where do you get these figures from?
• How have this mythical source merged the differing GWPs for each gas? Have they converted them to tons of CO2 equivalent?

 

[BenBurch]

World GHG emissions actually reached a record high last year.

They were down a tiny amount in 2009 due to the worldwide recession.

Emissions were 5% more than in 2008, and likely were still lowered by economic conditions.

 

[Furcifer]

sounds scientific.
in Bejing there are a huge number of cars that were bikes 30 years ago.



many people that didn't have AC 30 years ago have one today.

while one car used more 30 years ago, more families have 2 or more cars today.

And there are more bikes to become cars in India and the rest of Asia, are you saying this is "business as usual"?

a few posts ago you were making alot claims with your 1% linear number, and you failed to backup any of your claims and suddenly you dont know what is actually is etc. pretty telling.

You're right I don't know what this means, the constant 1% is linear, that's backed up by math.
The actual number is irrelevant when we're talking about the trending. Let's say it's 10000% per year. It's still not 20000% per year.
The fact that people don't grasp what's actually being discussed and instead fixate on some number is in fact very telling.

 

[Furcifer]

Surprise, surprise, you have, yet again, failed to produce any data to back up this claim.

• Where do you get these figures from?
• How have this mythical source merged the differing GWPs for each gas? Have they converted them to tons of CO2 equivalent?

lol, it's actually from Keeling, you know, the Keeling Curve you brought up.

I enjoy exposing how dependent the alarmists are on their propaganda sites for their information. They don't actually read the info themselves, they allow someone else to cherry pick the relevant data and simply copy and paste it here.

Keeling actually wrote some papers and collected some data in order to make that curve. Instead of fixing on the picture you may want to look at those papers for your answers.

 

[Reality Check]

The growth rate in GHG emissions.

Small problem: Not a constant 1% compounding increase as you have been asserting !
Where is your evidence for this varying % increase in GHG emissions?

 

[CapelDodger]

in Bejing there are a huge number of cars that were bikes 30 years ago.

Another example of business-as-usual; even the aspirations of the newly-prosperous remain the same.

while one car used more 30 years ago, more families have 2 or more cars today.

And what were front gardens 30 years ago are car-parks now, which does nothing for air-quality and contributes to flooding. So many feedbacks ...

 

[Trakar]

You are the one that raised that figure and have attached it (mistakenly) to annual CO2 increase, then to rate of CO2 increase, then to total GHG emissions. Yet you have completely failed to provide a source for that value apart from 4 of 5 papers about how it was used in some outdated models, not any real data.

So, yet again, please provide a citation that one of your chosen metrics is increasing at 1% yr^-1.

If you are going to go for total GHG emissions, how are you factoring in the GWP for each of those gases?

As for business as usual - last year was predicted to show a reduction in emissions due to the economic slowdown. Yet it didn't due to growth in China and India. Very much business as usual. The rate of increase in CO2 concentration has been steadily increasing since the 1960s and even steadily increased through your chosen window of 1980 to 2010. Very much business as usual...

My only quibble would be that though the accelerating rate of increase is indeed "usual" over the last 50 years (or so), I have a harder time with describing such an accelerating increase, "steady." But that's my pedancy, ...of course, I'd bend the knee if you have some supporting evidence for a steadily accelerating increase?!

Or, ...in thread colloquialism, "1%, 1.01%, 1.0201%, 1.030201%,..."(or something along those lines). I'm more of the impression, and concern, that super-exponential may indeed be a better fit for the data over this same time period. This is probably reasonable given the feedbacks we are fully aware of as well as the ones we suspect to be in transition to more substantive and dramatic levels of contribution.

This was even discussed in the paper mentioned just prior to the latest diversion.

...The following derivation is not intended to represent a faithful economic growth model that we would like to promote, but is offered to illustrate the importance of indirect mechanisms in growth processes. In particular, we would like to stress the fact that faster-than-exponential growth is a robust outcome of multi-dimensional loop processes. Even when each feedback process individually leads to an exponential or even a subdued sub-exponential growth, the overall dynamics can be super-exponential...

Evidence for super-exponentially accelerating atmospheric carbon dioxide growth
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2832v2.pdf

 

[Trakar]

Some seem to think that climate considerations are divided into distinct 30 year intervals, this is simply naively incorrect, or disingenuously distorted. The rule of thumb in climate considerations is that 30 years is the least significant length of time in which to consider and evaluate climate trends. In general the larger the time period considered the more reliable and significant any climate trending exposed.

 

[lomiller]

Some seem to think that climate considerations are divided into distinct 30 year intervals, this is simply naively incorrect, or disingenuously distorted. The rule of thumb in climate considerations is that 30 years is the least significant length of time in which to consider and evaluate climate trends. In general the larger the time period considered the more reliable and significant any climate trending exposed.

I wouldn’t say it’s the least amount of time, more like a useful rule of thumb. For example in 2009 warming trend post 1995 was 0.19 deg per decade but only significant to a 90% level and therefore just short of the normal measure for statistically significant. Today the warming trend post 1995 is still 0.19 deg per decade but it’s now significant at 95%.

In this case the time for climatic effects to be seen is 16 years, but in other situations it could be shorter or longer.

 

[Mikemcc]

lol, it's actually from Keeling, you know, the Keeling Curve you brought up.

I enjoy exposing how dependent the alarmists are on their propaganda sites for their information. They don't actually read the info themselves, they allow someone else to cherry pick the relevant data and simply copy and paste it here.

Keeling actually wrote some papers and collected some data in order to make that curve. Instead of fixing on the picture you may want to look at those papers for your answers.

The Keeling curve is for CO2 concentration - not global GHG emissions - the metric that you shifted the goalpost to. You can't have it both ways, you've been whinging enough about posters discussing the Mauna Loa CO2 concentration!

So, to repeat:

• Where do you get these figures from (in terms of your desired metric of global GHG emissions)?
• How have this mythical source merged the differing GWPs for each gas? Have they converted them to tons of CO2 equivalent?

 

[Mikemcc]

My only quibble would be that though the accelerating rate of increase is indeed "usual" over the last 50 years (or so), I have a harder time with describing such an accelerating increase, "steady." But that's my pedancy, ...of course, I'd bend the knee if you have some supporting evidence for a steadily accelerating increase?!

Or, ...in thread colloquialism, "1%, 1.01%, 1.0201%, 1.030201%,..."(or something along those lines). I'm more of the impression, and concern, that super-exponential may indeed be a better fit for the data over this same time period. This is probably reasonable given the feedbacks we are fully aware of as well as the ones we suspect to be in transition to more substantive and dramatic levels of contribution.

This was even discussed in the paper mentioned just prior to the latest diversion.



Evidence for super-exponentially accelerating atmospheric carbon dioxide growth
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2832v2.pdf

My use of that phrase was from the analysis from Tamino's CO2 shame posting:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/co2-shame/

His analysis suggests a linear increase in the annual rate of growth of C)2 concentration, with a superimposed variation related to El Nino (delayed by 9 months). That left one residual in the early 90s.

 

[CapelDodger]

Some seem to think that climate considerations are divided into distinct 30 year intervals, this is simply naively incorrect, or disingenuously distorted. The rule of thumb in climate considerations is that 30 years is the least significant length of time in which to consider and evaluate climate trends. In general the larger the time period considered the more reliable and significant any climate trending exposed.

We've actually had 30 years since the first signs of AGW began emerging, and the temperature trend is not rationally deniable. What we've discovered over that time is that ice responds more rapidly to temperature change than previously expected, which is a positive feedback, and any hypothesised negative feedback from clouds is not in evidence.

Now we're starting to see what the impact on human society is going to be, and that is naturally centred on food. Which might (at last) concentrate some minds in high places.