Global warming in the Sunday Times mag

Ok, I will play.

I have no idea if your values are right, but I will accept them for now. I will also ask again if water vapour and co2 are equivalent in terms of greenhouseness ? I suspect that matters a lot.
 
Surely even you can see from that Graph that CO2 levels are now much higher than at any other time within the timeframe of that graph? An that is certainly not lagging a corresponding temperature increase by 800 years!

Since you still won't quote a source for these mysterious figures of yours, nor for that matter even quote what you actually mean - no one can help you clear up your confusion
 
Quite. No-one has argued that the graph is wrong, although several have completely misinterpreted it.

The sole argument so far seems to be that a correlation which has held with remarkable fidelity for 400,00 years is about to suddenly fall apart completely and save the world. Let's hope so!
 
Hi Whipper_snapper,

I'm off to the boat now but will "play" either tomorrow or monday but whilst I'm away please go find figures of your own and see if they compare to mine.

Bedouin,

You're full of hot air and don't answer any questions. All you do is poo poo information without backing anything up.

Tell me exactly what figures of mine you disagree with and why. I'm sure there are thousands of pro Man Made Global Warming web sites you can get alternative from.
 
I think it may well do so actually!

If you ignore all the hype what the graph actually appears to show is a combination of two separate feedback processes. A positive feedback process acting fairly short term and a negative feedback process lagging that by a considerable margin.

It is quite reasonable to hope (and it is only hope) that the negative feedback will help stave off disaster - paricularly if we can reduce the "driving" effect of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere. However the real point is that we are so far off the graph in terms of levels of CO2 that no one can really predict.

The doomsayers would claim that the temperature rise is so great that the environment won't be able to adapt fast enough for the negative feedback to kick in
 
I notice that you are still not prepared to say where you are getting those figures from.

The Wiki entry puts the effect of water vapour at 35-70% - and also makes it clear that that gives positive feedback to the effect of CO2
 
[ QUOTE ]
I notice that you are still not prepared to say where you are getting those figures from.

The Wiki entry puts the effect of water vapour at 35-70% - and also makes it clear that that gives positive feedback to the effect of CO2

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying co2 has an even less effect as a % on the climate?
 
I am reluctant to do 'research by google' on a subject outside my area of expertise. (and I am on a very slow connection at the moment.)

However, wikipedia agrees amazingly well with the numbers I pulled off the graph by eyeball:

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the concentrations of many of the greenhouse gases have increased. The concentration of CO2 has increased by about 100 ppm (i.e., from 280 ppm to 380 ppm). The first 50 ppm increase took place in about 200 years, from the start of the Industrial Revolution to around 1973; the next 50 ppm increase took place in about 33 years, from 1973 to 2006. [2]PDF (96.8 KiB). Many observations are available on line in a variety of Atmospheric Chemistry Observational Databases.

So unless you can point me to a credible source that says there is a huge, new, non human source of CO2 that kicked in at the time of the industrial revolution, I am inclined to discount your figures on the human contribution to current CO2 levels.

Wikipedia also says that water vapour is an important greenhouse gas, but that because it responds to temperature rise to generate a positive feedback, its effect is closely linked to CO2 levels. They cannot therefore be treated separately.
 
[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]Did you miss the big green spike in CO2 on your own graph? So quick on this scale, that it appears as a single vertical line?

carbon_dioxide.jpg


And the fact that every increase in temperature above the average for the last 500,000 years has occurred AFTER the corresponding CO2 spike? Except the most recent, which only indicates we are long overdue?
 
[ QUOTE ]
And the fact that every increase in temperature above the average for the last 500,000 years has occurred AFTER the corresponding CO2 spike? Except the most recent, which only indicates we are long overdue

[/ QUOTE ]

which illustrates we just dont know how the correlation might relate

in nature you dont get unexplained exceptions ...... it must be due to another factor

simple facts like increased solar activity reduces cloud cover - which warms the globe

increased cloud cover will cool the globe

increased temp will result in increased water vapour (clouds) and rainfall increasing humidity (clouds)

it could be CO2 is a red herring ....... it is a measurable quantity but surely its % of the atmosphere remains very small and no one really understands the significance of CO2 - just that it approximates the temp.

no one knows - its conjecture

why screw up our civilisation as we know it 'just in case', I have already listed several 'just in case' scenarios which were a damp squib

what is the point in massive industrial wrecking on a local scale when others will be carbon trading, like the greenhouse gas trading which was going on, and others globally will be doing diddly squat about it

its about time someone stood up and banged some heads together - scientists are guessing (extrapolating) what might happen ....... big deal, let them chatter over dinner parties /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

please read this - channel 4 ripost

and this - especially the second half about sceptics
 
there is a lot of difference between being CO2 aware and the draconian measures proposed by b.liar and his cronies.

its almost like he want to punish britons, he and brown - and grind them into fiscal submission /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

sure, reduce energy use/waste and air pollution - but in a controlled and 'holistic' manner ........ globally
 
[ QUOTE ]
which illustrates we just dont know how the correlation might relate

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am afraid it does not. The post-industrial spike is effectively instant. There is absolutely nothing in that graph that says anything except there is a very strong corelation between temp and CO2. That really is a fact.

You may argue that the post industrial CO2 is not of human origin (with evidence please!), you may argue that we don't know how fast temp will respond to this uniquely fast change in CO2 levels, you may argue that both are responding independently to some other external factor, you may argue that other factors will kick in when we move to conditions the planet has neer seen before, so we should not extrapolate beyond the existing data.

But it is simply false to say that the plot shows anything other than an amazingly tight correlation between temp and CO2.

in nature you dont get unexplained exceptions ...... it must be due to another factor

As I said, this is not an unexplained exception. You certainly do get unexplained exceptions in nature, but this is not one of them. I can tell you that having looked at lots and lots of 'natural' data over my time, I have rarely seen such a tight and consistent correlation. I would kill for such a beautiful plot from my biological studies. Having come at these data completely cold, I am willing to listen to all and any arguments that tell me its underlying data is wrong or that it is being misinterpreted somehow - but I have yet to hear one that is acceptable by any normal standards. Please keep trying, I am listening.


no one knows - its conjecture

No-one knows for sure how temperature will respond to uniquely high and uniquely rapidly changing CO2 levels. That is true. But for me, from what I have seen so far, the best working hypothesis is that CO2 levels are driving temperature change. That is because:

1. We see a tight correlation over very long periods of time (much longer than human existence for sure).

2. there is a sound theoretical mechanism to explain this link.

3. there is no evidence of any other mechanism - there was talk of correlation with solar activity, I have not found any credible evidence for this. Please point me to it if you can.

I was concerned by talk that really ancient CO2 levels had been higher than 300ppm and 'we hadn't all fried'!. I did a little poking around and found that this was apparently so, but my hope was that we could show that temp would NOT follow CO2 at such levels, unfortunately it appears that it did (Google PETM). The planet was a very different place then, and CO2 levels rose much more slowly than at present but temperature did spike.

This is the wikipedia entry:

Sea surface temperatures rose between 5 and 8°C over a period of a few thousand years, and in the high Arctic, sea surface temperatures rose to a sub-tropical ~23°C/73°F.[1] In 1990, marine scientists James Kennett and Lowell Stott, both then at the University of California, Santa Barbara, reported analysis of marine sediments showing that, not only had the surface of the Arctic ocean heated up about 10 degrees at the beginning of the Eocene, but that the entire depth of the ocean had warmed, and its chemistry changed disastrously. There was severely reduced oxygen in deep sea waters, and 30 to 40% of deep sea foraminifera suddenly went extinct. Geologist Jim Zachos of the University of California, Santa Cruz has connected the Eocene heat wave to drastic changes in ocean chemistry (Zachos et al., 2005) that caused the massive worldwide die-off.


So I fear that there is a very compelling body of evidence that temp can be expected to track CO2 for the next few years as it has over the last few million years. And I venture to suggest that if the consequences were not so inconvenient, no-one would be arguing.
 
Re: Global warming and the media -

[ QUOTE ]
. Temperature change always precedes changes in CO2 by several hundred years. Temperature drives CO2, not the other way round. The global-warmers do not deny this. They cannot

[/ QUOTE ]

there seems to be a fundamental difference of opnion - which is prolly why we are not listening to each other /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Apocalypse now scenarios don't help IMO.

A dose of reality also says IF global warming is CO2 caused and not other effects it will only be slowable not stoppable because large parts of the world are still growing their industries, if only to make the essential cannot do without crap we insist on replacing annually if not before.

So good old UK PLC is priced/regulated out of the marketplace to set a good example to the rest of the world, so that apocalypse can happen on Friday instead of Monday.

A better idea but in the same 'UK must show the way' vein. Let the bands of preachers do the 'show the way' example BEFORE the rest of us get involved with turning our phone chargers off, you know turn the lights off in Parliament, turn off the heating, get rid of ministerial cars and stop the buggers flying all over the place when our flights are considered plainly unnecesary. Forget the carbon offsetting crap too, most of it is just money making spin.

Or we could spend more time and energy thinking hard about how to deal with what might be coming.
 
another 'the end of the world is neigh' merchant

temp fluctuations are normal - open your eyes and ears to all hypothesis', not just the popularist CO2 malarky
 
Re: Global warming and the media -

Where is that quote from?

I have been looking purely at the plots posted here by various people from both sides of the arguments, and I see a clear lag in the large scale peaks - temp follows CO2. I am not a global warmer and I am not denying anything, I am looking at the plots and giving my best shot at interpretation.

The plots cannot be resolved at a scale of a few 100 years. I find it hard to understand how they could be given the limitations of the measuring methods. But if you know of finer scale data that shows temp leading CO2 then please post it.

I am here to learn!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

S
Aerogen 4 capacitors
2
Replies
22
Views
627
Boater Sam
Boater Sam
T
Notices to Mariners - Week 52
Replies
0
Views
483
tillergirl
T
I
Alternator upgrade on Volvo TMD41A
Replies
7
Views
223
boatmike
boatmike
Refueler
Navionics Boating gives me river nav coverage .....
Replies
8
Views
298
Refueler
Refueler

Share this page

Top