USA Today: Could we be wrong about global warming?

[PapaG]

I'd like to see that graph juxtaposed with CO2 emissions.

 

[PapaG]

The point was that you're focused more on the economy than the environment.

How so? I'm not at all convinced that humans reducing the tiny fraction of greenhouse CO2 by a bit will have any impact on the environment.

 

[barfo]

Al Gore's argument is primarily political. He didn't win the Nobel Prize for Science; he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Now why is that?

Because he's not a scientist? And nobody thinks he is. His role/goal was to push the issue into the public consciousness, and I'd say he did a hell of a good job at that, at least given how often we have a thread on the subject here.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Because he's not a scientist? And nobody thinks he is. His role/goal was to push the issue into the public consciousness, and I'd say he did a hell of a good job, at least given how often we have a thread on the subject here.

barfo

What does that have to do with peace?

 

[mobes23]

I'd like to see that graph juxtaposed with CO2 emissions.

And I'd like to see it factor in other variables that also impact global temp. Again, amazing how you are able to live in the assumption that CO2 is the only impact on temperature. Take away the La Ninja impact and that plot might look very differenct. By the sound of it, El Nino is on the way and we may soon find out first hand.

 

[Minstrel]

Stupid math trick.

You can begin with the geologic scale of the time period or the scale of the numbers (-.6 to +.6). It's a scientific fact (not theory!) that you can zoom in on any graph with ups and downs and get something that looks like this. It's actually unimpressive.

The problem with your spin here is that 0.6 degrees is quite significant. Every degree of temperature increase is significant. Only a few degrees can create big changes in the world.

But looking at your graph, would you say that temperature has increased by .8 degrees since 1850 (which is hardly anything to be scared of), or would you say that temperature has increased by .9 degrees since 1910?

Both are true, and both are consequential.

It's quite evident that it's been hotter than now, when it was hotter than now there was less CO2, and that global warming trends occurred before man existed and the current one has been ongoing for about 10,000 years before the industrial age. It's also clear that CO2 levels actually lag temperature change.

Nobody's saying that this is historically unprecedented. I've said several times that these things cycle up and down naturally. The problem is that some local maxima/minima result in the extinction of species. It's probably not a comfort for them that temperatures cycled back the other way thousands of years after they died out.

So, showing that this has happened before and temperatures go up and down naturally isn't at all compelling. We're in a natural up-cycle...the concern is that if we also augment it with our own warming dynamics, we can make it one of those species-killing temperature peaks (we may not be among the species killed in that scenario, but losing any significant species can have real consequences). It's not guaranteed that mankind's actions will do so, but it's certainly a possibility.

 

[barfo]

Maybe a graph that actually does span geologic time periods holds some real cluse:

As Minstrel has already pointed out, when the human life span reaches 200,000 years, that time period
will be relevant to us. For now, 100 years is about the right timescale.

Interesting that the labels on the x-axis are out of order, anyway.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

And I'd like to see it factor in other variables that also impact global temp. Again, amazing how you are able to live in the assumption that CO2 is the only impact on temperature. Take away the La Ninja impact and that plot might look very differenct. By the sound of it, El Nino is on the way and we may soon find out first hand.

There was no la nina in 2004 at the lowest point of the graph.

So how do you want to factor it in?

 

[mobes23]

How so? I'm not at all convinced that humans reducing the tiny fraction of greenhouse CO2 by a bit will have any impact on the environment.

Fair enough. Honestly. You might be right, but consider other viewpoints and most importantly data to come to that conclusion.

So far this thread has primarily been about you staking claim to one plot you don't fully understand and asking other people to refute it. At this point, it's clear to me that no matter what I type you'll find one squirrelly blog or another to cling to your flimsy agenda.

One takeaway I had from that air chem class a long time ago was that the number of variables and interconnectedness of those variables is incredibly complex. It's great you're interested in this, but maybe take the time to fully understand the field before you start taking crazy stands on a topic is this important.

 

[barfo]

What does that have to do with peace?

http://nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=755

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

As Minstrel has already pointed out, when the human life span reaches 200,000 years, that time period
will be relevant to us. For now, 100 years is about the right timescale.

Interesting that the labels on the x-axis are out of order, anyway.

barfo

Try again.

In any case, it's the Y axis that's messed up. The range of 150 to 400 PARTS PER MILLION should be considered. Properly graphed, the CO2 levels would be a flat line.

To put things in economic terms, you might not consider a doubling of the interest rate your bank account earns if it changes from .0000000001% to .0000000002%

 

[Eastoff]

Try again.

To go with his pedanticness it goes 50k 150k 100k 200k

 

[barfo]

In any case, it's the Y axis that's messed up.

Are you saying the x-axis labeling isn't screwed up? It is.

The range of 150 to 450 PARTS PER MILLION should be considered.
Properly graphed, the CO2 levels would be a flat line.

By that argument, you could "properly graph" the temperature to be a flat line too. What would be the point of that exactly?

To put things in economic terms, you might not consider a doubling of the interest rate your bank account earns if it changes from .0000000001% to .0000000002%

In order to make that argument, you need to show that 450 ppm is a negligible amount. You haven't done that.

I could graph the amount of arsenic in your body (before and after I poison you) as a flat line, because hey, it is only a tiny fraction. But that flat line will flat line you.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Are you saying the x-axis labeling isn't screwed up? It is.



By that argument, you could "properly graph" the temperature to be a flat line too. What would be the point of that exactly?



In order to make that argument, you need to show that 450 ppm is a negligible amount. You haven't done that.

barfo

It is a negligible amount. 350 PPM = .000350. Compare, say, to nitrogen which makes up over 78% or .78.

It's spit in the ocean, it should be graphed like it is.

In any case, PapaG is factually correct in most of his assertions.

You can see a major spike in CO2 at the right edge of the graph with no correlating spike in temperature.

He was right about it being cooler year after year since 1998, too.

 

[Eastoff]

The range of 150 to 400 PARTS PER MILLION should be considered. Properly graphed, the CO2 levels would be a flat line.

To put things in economic terms, you might not consider a doubling of the interest rate your bank account earns if it changes from .0000000001% to .0000000002%

actually it would be .015% to .04%

Did you know that table salt is lethal at 3000 PARTS PER MILLION in the human body? that is one order of magnitude greater, than the amount of CO2 you seem unconcerned about. Note my only point of this is that it may seem small, but it can have a significant effect.

 

[barfo]

It is a negligible amount. 350 PPM = .000350. Compare, say, to nitrogen which makes up over 78% or .78.

That is a very silly argument, as I've already pointed out. You cannot just make the blanket statement that anything with a concentration of 350 ppm can be ignored. Well, you can, but you'd be (dead) wrong. You need to specifically show that 350 ppm CO2 in the earths atmosphere can be ignored.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

This is descending into comedy. "It's not even a whole number! That means it's tiny and doesn't matter."

 

[Denny Crane]

actually it would be .015% to .04%

Did you know that table salt is lethal at 3000 PARTS PER MILLION in the human body? that is one order of magnitude greater, than the amount of CO2 you seem unconcerned about. Note my only point of this is that it may seem small, but it can have a significant effect.

I bet antifreeze is more lethal at fewer parts per million.

My point is you're comparing something fatal to something that isn't.

 

[Denny Crane]

That is a very silly argument, as I've already pointed out. You cannot just make the blanket statement that anything with a concentration of 350 ppm can be ignored. Well, you can, but you'd be (dead) wrong. You need to specifically show that 350 ppm CO2 in the earths atmosphere can be ignored.

barfo

Uh, no.

Those who claim it's causing abnormal temperature increases need to prove it.

My role is to be skeptical of that whole argument since it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Eastoff]

Uh, no.

Those who claim it's causing abnormal temperature increases need to prove it.

My role is to be skeptical of that whole argument since it doesn't make any sense.

I have to agree with him here. When you make claims that something is different than accepted, you have to give proof.

 

[barfo]

Uh, no.

Those who claim it's causing abnormal temperature increases need to prove it.

My role is to be skeptical of that whole argument since it doesn't make any sense.

You are asserting that 450 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is harmless. That's a positive assertion, it is up to you to prove it. I didn't assert that 450 ppm was harmful, or it would be up to me to prove that. I'm the skeptic here, you are the one who is claiming to know the truth.

barfo

 

[Eastoff]

Side note, for some reason I always see Alec Baldwin as Jack Donaughy.

 

[barfo]

I have to agree with him here. When you make claims that something is different than accepted, you have to give proof.

Exactly. And I'm not making any claims. Denny is.

barfo

 

[barfo]

This is descending into comedy. "It's not even a whole number! That means it's tiny and doesn't matter."

Monty Python's Global Warming Circus

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Exactly. And I'm not making any claims. Denny is.

barfo

No, Al Gore and his flock are claiming 350 PPM, which is 2x increase of a very small number, is so significant that the world is going to end. They bear the burden of proof. And sorry, but Gore's silly powerpoint presentation that won an oscar and a nobel aren't proof at all.

 

[mobes23]

For what it's worth, when fossil fuels are burned, it's not just CO2 that's produced. A certain amount of CO will also be produced and CO is also a greenhouse gas. For purposes of legislating carbon emissions, CO would also need to be included in the analysis.

 

[barfo]

No, Al Gore and his flock are claiming 350 PPM, which is 2x increase of a very small number, is so significant that the world is going to end. They bear the burden of proof. And sorry, but Gore's silly powerpoint presentation that won an oscar and a nobel aren't proof at all.

Al Gore aint posting here, you are.
If Al Gore were to post here, I think you'd have a perfect right to demand he justify his numbers.
I'm not going to do it for him, because among other things, I've never even seen his presentation.
But I have seen what you've posted, and you are making specific claims that can be disputed.

barfo

 

[Shooter]

Hmmmm. Looks like Al Gore's hometown has broken a low temperature record set over 130 years ago . . .

Coolest July 21 recorded in Nashville as cool wave continues in Tenn.
By Associated Press
7:59 AM CDT, July 21, 2009

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Cool weather has broken a previous low temperature for July 21 in Nashville that was set when Rutherford B. Hayes was president.

When the temperature at the National Weather Service station dipped to 58 degrees at 5:30 a.m. on Tuesday, it wiped out the previous record low for the date of 60 degrees, which was set in 1877.

NWS forecaster Bobby Boyd noted it was the third consecutive morning when Nashville either tied or broke a daily low temperature record.

Temperatures were cool, but did not break records at several Tennessee cities.

Knoxville dropped to 59 degrees Tuesday morning, Chattanooga had 60 degrees, Tri-Cities recorded 58 degrees and Memphis was 69 degrees.

http://www.whnt.com/news/sns-ap-tn--recordcool,0,4032125.story

 

[barfo]

Hmmmm. Looks like Al Gore's hometown has broken a low temperature record set over 130 years ago . . .

Well, that proves it. It's a cold day in Nashville.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

Hmmmm. Looks like Al Gore's hometown has broken a low temperature record set over 130 years ago . . .

"Haw, haw, cold day today...so much for global warming!!1!"

You, sir, are a true scientist. A citizen scientist. Rebelling against the elitist scientific establishment and doing things your own way. I admire that "can-do" spirit.