Odd's on warmer future? 1 in 10,0000!!!!!

[konradv]

you need some new materia konradv


the IPCC says that 2x CO2 adds almost 4 watts per M2. the error bars for water systems are 10-20 watts each. they are trying to detect the effect of one variable that is dwarfed by the uncertainties. not something I am willing to bet trillions of dollars on.

Perhaps that's just because you don't know how science works. Sometimes you have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources. In other words, if you can't subtract out the effect of water, you need to find another field. No need to bet trillions, a math course and one on the scientific method should do. How can you say that a 10-11% increasing in carbon-forcing since the advent of the IR isn't significant?

 

[IanC]

Odd's on warmer future? 1 in 10,0000!!!!!


surely more people than that are going to hell.

and yet thats what we were told in 1974. but we are supposed to believe what we are being told today about global warming because this time they're right. anyone want to have fun by heckling Hansen's daft predictions made over the last 25 years?

but,but,but..........this time they are right!!!!! hahahaha

 

[westwall]

you need some new materia konradv


the IPCC says that 2x CO2 adds almost 4 watts per M2. the error bars for water systems are 10-20 watts each. they are trying to detect the effect of one variable that is dwarfed by the uncertainties. not something I am willing to bet trillions of dollars on.

Perhaps that's just because you don't know how science works. Sometimes you have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources. In other words, if you can't subtract out the effect of water, you need to find another field. No need to bet trillions, a math course and one on the scientific method should do. How can you say that a 10-11% increasing in carbon-forcing since the advent of the IR isn't significant?

Science doesn't use "tricks" konrad. "Tricks" are the purview of the conman.

 

[IanC]

More GHGs, more heat. Simple as that. To say otherwise seems to go against Conservation of Energy. How can you be sure a 25-30% increase in CO2 (10-11% increase in carbon forcing on the log scale) won't go even further to reach a tipping point that Arrhenius hadn't counted on? A relatively small increase in CO2 and concommitent rise in temp could easily lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere and methane release from perma-frost, adding even more to the earth's GHG load. Looking back at history is nice, but what we really need to be concerned about, since we emit more CO2 into the atmosphere in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

konradv- can I ask you to explain your figures? CO2 has increased by 40 per cent from pre industrial, not 25? because the influence of CO2 decreases as the amounts go up, then we should already be seeing more than 50 per cent of the effect not 11 per cent. I am just not sure where your figures are from or what they are supposed to mean. are they from a climate model or something?

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey West......Ian.......note no response from the k00ks on the historically significant data. Doesnt matter to the "real" scientists!!!!

 

[westwall]

Hey West......Ian.......note no response from the k00ks on the historically significant data. Doesnt matter to the "real" scientists!!!!

Well their "history" is only 20 to 30 years old. It's kind of like the racer in the Cannonball Run movie, "what's behind them does not concern them".

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[konradv]

More GHGs, more heat. Simple as that. To say otherwise seems to go against Conservation of Energy. How can you be sure a 25-30% increase in CO2 (10-11% increase in carbon forcing on the log scale) won't go even further to reach a tipping point that Arrhenius hadn't counted on? A relatively small increase in CO2 and concommitent rise in temp could easily lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere and methane release from perma-frost, adding even more to the earth's GHG load. Looking back at history is nice, but what we really need to be concerned about, since we emit more CO2 into the atmosphere in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

konradv- can I ask you to explain your figures? CO2 has increased by 40 per cent from pre industrial, not 25? because the influence of CO2 decreases as the amounts go up, then we should already be seeing more than 50 per cent of the effect not 11 per cent. I am just not sure where your figures are from or what they are supposed to mean. are they from a climate model or something?

You see different numbers. I was using the more conservative 25-30%. Since you always claim that CO2 forcing is logarithmic that would be 10-11% on the log scale. Still, that would be considered significant in most scientific situations. Where's this 50% you're talking about? That seems to have been pulled out of thin air. First you claim CO2 forcing is lower because of the log scale and yet now you're claiming we should be seeing 50%?!?!

 

[IanC]

More GHGs, more heat. Simple as that. To say otherwise seems to go against Conservation of Energy. How can you be sure a 25-30% increase in CO2 (10-11% increase in carbon forcing on the log scale) won't go even further to reach a tipping point that Arrhenius hadn't counted on? A relatively small increase in CO2 and concommitent rise in temp could easily lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere and methane release from perma-frost, adding even more to the earth's GHG load. Looking back at history is nice, but what we really need to be concerned about, since we emit more CO2 into the atmosphere in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

konradv- can I ask you to explain your figures? CO2 has increased by 40 per cent from pre industrial, not 25? because the influence of CO2 decreases as the amounts go up, then we should already be seeing more than 50 per cent of the effect not 11 per cent. I am just not sure where your figures are from or what they are supposed to mean. are they from a climate model or something?

You see different numbers. I was using the more conservative 25-30%. Since you always claim that CO2 forcing is logarithmic that would be 10-11% on the log scale. Still, that would be considered significant in most scientific situations. Where's this 50% you're talking about? That seems to have been pulled out of thin air. First you claim CO2 forcing is lower because of the log scale and yet now you're claiming we should be seeing 50%?!?!

as you can see the effect of CO2 trails off as the concentration gets higher. doubling from 280 to 560 will cause about 1-2K rise but so will doubling from 560 to 1120. the earlier increases have more impact than the later increases. that is why I said we should already be seeing at least 50% of the warming even though we have had less than half of the first doubling. think back to your physics and chemistry courses.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL........more pwnage from IanC.........

 

[skookerasbil]

LMAO......theres snow in..............


49 states

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh.......and I woke up to 19 inches of the white stuff this am..........second time in two weeks. Let me tell you something..........New Yorkers would love some global warming right about now. They've had it.............

Of course, FAITHERS who live in Bumfook and other places nobody ever heard of have no clue about what happens when big snow hits a major metropolitan area. Id love to see a FAITHER walk down Queens Blvd this am and start talking about global warming end of days shit!!! You'd make it about a block before a local would whack you over the head with a big old snow shovel.

 

[Old Rocks]

konradv- can I ask you to explain your figures? CO2 has increased by 40 per cent from pre industrial, not 25? because the influence of CO2 decreases as the amounts go up, then we should already be seeing more than 50 per cent of the effect not 11 per cent. I am just not sure where your figures are from or what they are supposed to mean. are they from a climate model or something?

You see different numbers. I was using the more conservative 25-30%. Since you always claim that CO2 forcing is logarithmic that would be 10-11% on the log scale. Still, that would be considered significant in most scientific situations. Where's this 50% you're talking about? That seems to have been pulled out of thin air. First you claim CO2 forcing is lower because of the log scale and yet now you're claiming we should be seeing 50%?!?!

as you can see the effect of CO2 trails off as the concentration gets higher. doubling from 280 to 560 will cause about 1-2K rise but so will doubling from 560 to 1120. the earlier increases have more impact than the later increases. that is why I said we should already be seeing at least 50% of the warming even though we have had less than half of the first doubling. think back to your physics and chemistry courses.

Really odd, Ian, old boy, since the physicists at the American Institute of Physics state differantly.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple Models, use link at right.)



The subtle difference was scarcely noticed for many decades, if only because hardly anyone thought the greenhouse effect was worth their attention. After Ångström published his conclusions in 1900, the small group of scientists who had taken an interest in the matter concluded that Arrhenius's hypothesis had been proven wrong. Theoretical work on the question stagnated for decades, and so did measurement of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.(10*)

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh.......and I woke up to 19 inches of the white stuff this am..........second time in two weeks. Let me tell you something..........New Yorkers would love some global warming right about now. They've had it.............

Of course, FAITHERS who live in Bumfook and other places nobody ever heard of have no clue about what happens when big snow hits a major metropolitan area. Id love to see a FAITHER walk down Queens Blvd this am and start talking about global warming end of days shit!!! You'd make it about a block before a local would whack you over the head with a big old snow shovel.

LOL. It snows at New York's lattitude. Who'd a thunk it

 

[IanC]

[ QUOTE=Old Rocks;3198936]

You see different numbers. I was using the more conservative 25-30%. Since you always claim that CO2 forcing is logarithmic that would be 10-11% on the log scale. Still, that would be considered significant in most scientific situations. Where's this 50% you're talking about? That seems to have been pulled out of thin air. First you claim CO2 forcing is lower because of the log scale and yet now you're claiming we should be seeing 50%?!?!

as you can see the effect of CO2 trails off as the concentration gets higher. doubling from 280 to 560 will cause about 1-2K rise but so will doubling from 560 to 1120. the earlier increases have more impact than the later increases. that is why I said we should already be seeing at least 50% of the warming even though we have had less than half of the first doubling. think back to your physics and chemistry courses.

Really odd, Ian, old boy, since the physicists at the American Institute of Physics state differantly.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple Models, use link at right.)



The subtle difference was scarcely noticed for many decades, if only because hardly anyone thought the greenhouse effect was worth their attention. After Ångström published his conclusions in 1900, the small group of scientists who had taken an interest in the matter concluded that Arrhenius's hypothesis had been proven wrong. Theoretical work on the question stagnated for decades, and so did measurement of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.(10*)[/QUOTE]


how is what I said at odds with your link? I carefully read it only day ago and it sidestepped the issue of only looking at CO2. CO2 is a well mixed gas, water is not. CO2 has the majority of its effect at higher levels, that is why you calculate at all altitudes. water is dominant in the areas where it is present. the three curves on the graph I linked are there because it is unreasonable to take the purely hypothetical situation of only CO2 and no water vapour. didnt you say you looked at the link when I first posted it? I suppose you were only looking for the name of the author or website so that you could deride it. no sense in distracting yourself with information when you already have your story written in stone, eh?