Global warming in the Sunday Times mag

[bedouin]

[ QUOTE ]

not necessarily

[/ QUOTE ]
Read the article again. They are not doubting the fact of GW caused by man - they are very reasonably warning against some of the more extreme catastrophic predictions.

The fact is that the vast, rapid rise in CO2 is taking us so far from our previous experience that no good scientist can have any certainty what will happen. That man is causing GW is a fact so well established that no one but a fool would genuinely question it. It is the potential impact of that that is so uncertain - which is what the article is saying

 

[KevB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I've posted some figures, if I'm wrong I'd like someone to explain why and point to figures that contradict mine. So far no one has bothered. maybe I'm right? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
You posted some ridiculous statistics - which are so clearly wrong that they are laughable - but without quoting their source no one can point that out to you.

I'm afraid that people who post figures like that are either fools or charlatans. Those who believe them without bothering to look behind them are fools - those who post them knowing them to be false are charlatans

[/ QUOTE ]

So come on, post evidence to contradict them. You are looking foolish. Lots of talk and NOTHING to back it up.

 

[KevB]

Tell me which figures you disagree with and why.

 

[whipper_snapper]

Well that's the kettle calling the pot black.

Ok, so you have abandoned that point now. Sort of progress.


You are on the man made global warming band wagon without proof it exists.

No I am not. You don't seem able to believe it, but I am just reacting to data presented here. I was goaded into action by some blatantly wrong interpretations of the graphs that were posted here.

I've posted some figures, if I'm wrong I'd like someone to explain why and point to figures that contradict mine. So far no one has bothered. maybe I'm right?

Are you talking about figures on CO2 levels? As I said, I have no idea what the values are, I am sure someone does. But look at the graphs showing temp and C02. Do you agree that they are real? If so what do you think accounts for the recent CO2 spike? That is not asked from some bandwagon. It is a simple naive question.

 

[tcm]

wel yes, but there' loads of stuf before even carpooling.

Buy six things at the shops and you've got a massive bad of carboard and more bags.

The botled french (and scottish) water is fairly amazing waste.

This morning - Telepgraph 16page pullout on er saving energy!

 

[KevB]

I don't know the reason for the spike but if we are going to use that graph as a reference it seems global temperature has fallen over the same period as the co2 spike?

This is how I have come to the conclusion that the amount of co2 which is in the atmosphere thanks to man is soo tiny it's not worth considering.

Now before I start, if any of my figures are wrong will someone please tell me which ones' and why...


Greenhouse gases:

Water vapor 95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618%
Methane (CH4) 0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.950%
CFC's 0.072%

Mans contribution to greenhouse gas is in reality very tiny at 0.117 but lets take Bedouin's outrageous figure of a whopping 30% of co2 as the amount for this calculation..

30% of 3.6 is 1.08%

so using Bedouin's massive figure of man made co2 at 30% still means the world as a whole is still only accountable for 1.08% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The UK contributes 2% of the total man made co2 in the atmosphere so taking Bedouin's massive figure of 30% of total man made co2 (1.08%) this means the UK contributes 0.0216% to the green house gases.


Using real figures and not Bedouin's made up figure the UK actually contributes about 0.0056% co2 to the total of greenhouse gases and man in total 0.28%

 

[landaftaf]

[ QUOTE ]
. That man is causing GW is a fact so well established that no one but a fool would genuinely question

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah - and the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, all computers will crash in 2000, the ozone layer is disappearing and we will all shrivel and die ........ oh, and we were, until recently, heading for another ice age.

academics of the world unite as the end is neigh.

I am of the opinion you are the stupid one by being duped by gobbledegook emanating from the pseudo realistic world of the scientist , and are so arrogant to think we puny humans can change the global environment in such a short time.

you can shout from the rooftops as loud as you like, and run around with placards, I place you as another crank /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

nothing personal - some of my best friends are cranks /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[bedouin]

[ QUOTE ]

So come on, post evidence to contradict them. You are looking foolish. Lots of talk and NOTHING to back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you check back you will see the statistics that contradict them posted by someone else - showing the burning fossil fuels accounts for the rise in Co2 levels entirely - but you seem to be ignoring those

 

[bedouin]

You're just pulling these figures from out of the air without even attempting to understand them. Try reading some of the articles on Wiki about this for a more balanced perspective.

With your graph you are messing about with the scales again - the scales you've used are so small that the post-industrial spike is straight up so there is no way you can see from that graph whether the temperature has fallen.

 

[bedouin]

Okay - name one non fool who genuinely questions whether man is contributing to GW - and cite one peer-reviewed reference for that (that has not already been discredited).

 

[whipper_snapper]

it seems global temperature has fallen over the same period as the co2 spike?

Sorry, but I don’t see that. I see a lag in response, and that the temp-CO2 correlation is remarkably stable over a period of 400,000 years.


If we accept the reality of the graph, then I see a post-industrialisation rise from say 290 to say 360 ppmv. That says that very roughly 20% (70/360) of present day CO2 arose post industrialisation. And that present levels are far in excess of anything experienced at any time in the previous 400,000 years, and they departed from the normal geologic range at exactly the same time as human industrialisation (again, as near as I can resolve from that plot).

I assume your figures for the composition of greenhouse gasses shows their levels by weight or volume. What about their “greenhouseness” ? Is a given amount of water vapour more or less greenhouse-inducing than the same amount of CO2? I don’t know, but if not that will have an effect on the significance of those numbers. But otherwise, I will not argue with any of your figures, except the last (fraction of CO2 which is man-made) because it is hard to reconcile with the plot of CO2 levels. They suggest a figure for anthropogenic CO2 closer to Bedouin’s than yours. The only other possibilities are that the plot is wrong or that most of the post-industrialisation CO2 is not of human origin. The latter may objection be true, but on the face of it the evidence for a human role is strong.

Also, at one level, it does not matter that CO2 is only a small fraction of the total greenhouse gas, because the predictions are based on a plot showing correlation between temperature and CO2 alone.

Now it is also a true that the graph suggests we departing from anything previously seen over the last 400,000 years and extrapolating way beyond anything previously seen is, by itself, highly error prone. It may be some extra buffering process will kick in and save us all. But it is also possible that it will go very unstable and produce runaway temps. Fingers crossed eh!


I stress that again, I am basing this on no prior knowledge at all. I am just critically examining the data on this thread. I am not doing this with any agenda in mind, I am doing what I do for a living - challenging data. Non scientists often get upset about this and think I am pushing another point of view. I am not, I am inviting you to defend your interpretation.

 

[KevB]

[ QUOTE ]
You're just pulling these figures from out of the air without even attempting to understand them. Try reading some of the articles on Wiki about this for a more balanced perspective.

With your graph you are messing about with the scales again - the scales you've used are so small that the post-industrial spike is straight up so there is no way you can see from that graph whether the temperature has fallen.

[/ QUOTE ]


I didn't quote from that graph someone else did, I used it as reference. I also didn't originally post it.

So Bedouin, which of the figures I have quoted are wrong. If you can't post some fact here and substantiate your claims agains my figures then you are just blowing hot air like the rest of the doomers.

Come on, which of my figures are wrong.

I have no clue about the mechanics of climage change. All I have done is doubted the spin and gone and found figures for myself. If they are wrong please post the correct figures.

 

[KevB]

This graph possibly shows better which came first the chicken or the egg?

All I am saying is I don't believe the spin so have googled the web for figures which I believe to be true and from reliable sources.

If anyone can point out where I have gone wrong with the figures I'd be more than happy.

 

[KevB]

Also, just to note that if you want to factor in the "greenhouseness" of the gases, CFC's, Nitrous Oxide and Methan all have a greater "greenhouseness" than co2?

 

[whipper_snapper]

Sorry, try as I might I just don't see it. That looks like the same data, there is some wobbling around the very top of the most recent peak. Is that what you are referring to? If so it will not be statistically significant as it is well within the 'wobble range' in the CO2-temp levels over the last 400,000 years - you can see many other places where the divergence is greater. Yet throughout the period a very very strong correlation is obvious.

If a student came to me with that data but concluded that the system was behaving completely differently over very recent times, I would tell him that he was massively over-interpreting noisy data and that the only really valid conclusion was that temp and CO2 are very strongly correlated.

 

[KevB]

[ QUOTE ]
If a student came to me with that data but concluded that the system was behaving completely differently over very recent times, I would tell him that he was massively over-interpreting noisy data

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I would say also. Nothing over recent times is any different from what's happened over the last few hundred thousand years. So why all of a sudden is climate change man made?

 

[whipper_snapper]

But the graph shows CO2 levels higher than at any time over the last 400,000 years. The 'conservative' conclusion is surely that the correlation will hold and temperatures follow. You appear to be saying that over very very recent times the correlation has fallen apart. I am saying I see no evidence for that.

 

[KevB]

we could argue about the graph all day and not agree on what came first as the graph doesn't hold much detail. My opinion is based on figures I have found and not some squigly lines /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[whipper_snapper]

Well I am sorry, but if those figures you have found have been plotted on that graph, then the fact that they vanish into a mush of noise and squigly lines is really telling you something. It is telling you that they are over too small a time scale to draw any conclusion other than temperature and CO2 levels correlate very closely.

 

[KevB]

no, my figures are nothing to do with the graph. I didn't even post it originally.

Why not just disprove my figures, I'll say sorry and start worrying about global warming. Surely it's easy to do if they are wrong? Just post the correct ones.....

Ok lets start like this.

Do you agree 95% of the green house gases is made up of water vapour?

Do you agree that 3.6% of green house gas is co2?