Global warming... what the!?

[Parkbandit]

MIAMI — Intensifying one of the hottest debates in science, a new report concludes that global warming is diminishing the number of hurricanes that strike Florida and the rest of the United States.

The study found that the planet's oceans have been warming for more than a century. No surprise there, but this may be: Those warmer oceans are producing stronger crosswinds that tend to suppress the development and growth of hurricanes, the scientists said.

"We found a gentle decrease in the trend of U.S. landfalling hurricanes as global oceans warmed up," said Chunzai Wang, an oceanographer and climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Some previous studies found that global warming was increasing the number and intensity of hurricanes, a conclusion that supported the conventional wisdom that warmer seas automatically turbocharge hurricane development.

The new study, by Wang and Sang-Ki Lee of the University of Miami, will be published today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004139813_oceans23.html

__________________________________________________ ____


Well this does seem to be an "Inconvenient (possible) Truth" :(

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It's gonna be -2 here in the morning, before factoring in wind chill.

I think it's global cooling.

[Ilvane]

It's the middle of winter..what do you expect??? hehe.

I love the snow in the south though..they don't know what to do with it..

heee..

[Warriorbird]

Global shift is probably a better description. Glaciers are melting. Icebergs have been reduced. The immediate disaster notions are pretty much bunk but I'm sure effects will make themselves somewhat clear.

[Gan]

Global shift is probably a better description. Glaciers are melting. Icebergs have been reduced. The immediate disaster notions are pretty much bunk but I'm sure effects will make themselves somewhat clear.


WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH WARRIORBIRD?


IMPOSTER ALERT

IMPOSTER ALERT

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I was watching discovery channel this past weekend and they had a great special on how the warmer earth was a trend, and that we were in fact, due an ice age in the next 10 years, that would last a few hundred years.

Wish I could find it, it was a great show explaining the way the earth rotated and leaned, and how we will be entering a period where we are further from the sun (not spinning out of orbit, just further from it), causing the ice age.

Ice age, by their definition was just a period of time where the earth will on average cool, polar caps grow, sea's reduce, etc.

[Warriorbird]

I think I've seen that one too. Hopefully it counteracts some of the artificial stuff that we've done.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'm pretty sure they teach this in high school.

[Sean of the Thread]

I think I've seen that one too. Hopefully it counteracts some of the artificial stuff that we've done.

Nothing we could do short of nuke the planet clean would effect it.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

What about "An Inconvient Truth" Sean! What about that!

[Sean of the Thread]

What about "An Inconvient Truth" Sean! What about that!

He profiteered off of all the ignorant children left behind. Much like Wal-Mart does. :lol:

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Dude, I'm all for a "green" planet. But I'll be damned if I don't use ice in my drinks, Air conditioning for my car and house, work in a climate controled office, use an oven to cook my food, etc, etc, etc.

The ridiculous things for me are the one billion green golf courses in Phoenix. Hum-Vees. etc

[Warriorbird]

Yeah. At one point I used to be fairly wonkily environmentally overzealous. Then my Grandfather sat me down and told me that jet airplanes did more damage to the ozone layer than anything else....and that environmentalists always flew on jets.

I think we should do practical things where we can. I'd love to see our dependence on foreign fuels end. I'd love to see some tax breaks and such for actually using solar. Crazy things are fun to think about too though. If we bought Mexico and turned it into a giant wind farm could we save ourselves from being pathetically dependent on the wackos in the Middle East?

[Gan]

Yeah. At one point I used to be fairly wonkily environmentally overzealous. Then my Grandfather sat me down and told me that jet airplanes did more damage to the ozone layer than anything else....and that environmentalists always flew on jets.

I think we should do practical things where we can. I'd love to see our dependence on foreign fuels end. I'd love to see some tax breaks and such for actually using solar. Crazy things are fun to think about too though. If we bought Mexico and turned it into a giant wind farm could we save ourselves from being pathetically dependent on the wackos in the Middle East?

Don Quixote agrees.

[Hulkein]

A good volcano eruption would drop global temperatures. It really is a joke how much people think we affect it.

[Parkbandit]

A good volcano eruption would drop global temperatures. It really is a joke how much people think we affect it.

Yea.. I read that the total CO2 emissions that are man made are just under 2% of the natural occurring CO2. So essentially, Gore and company believe that the 2% = doom of the planet.

Global warming is just another prime example of how stupid people actually are and how you can basically tell them anything and they will believe it.

[Warriorbird]

Not that I disagree...but CO2 levels are only part of the issue, Parkbandit.

[diethx]

It's the middle of winter..what do you expect??? hehe.

I love the snow in the south though..they don't know what to do with it..

heee..

Sure they do... they make snowmen in their yards and crash into each other on the roads (more than normal).

The snow wasn't even sticking to the roads, and they still manage to crash more. Hooray for shitty southern (Atlanta) drivers.

[Parkbandit]

Not that I disagree...but CO2 levels are only part of the issue, Parkbandit.

Yea.. by far the largest part. What's your point?

[Warriorbird]

Human actions show up more in some of the other areas.

[CrystalTears]

Yeah like in Kansas with all those farting cows.

[Sean of the Thread]

I've got to find the study again but I've just read a lengthy one on how the temps are royally fucked based on where the the stations are located anyways.

Like near bbq's ... Air conditioning units vents.... peoples rooftoops near a chimney etc.

funny shit.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Yea.. I read that the total CO2 emissions that are man made are just under 2% of the natural occurring CO2. So essentially, Gore and company believe that the 2% = doom of the planet.>>

It must suck to have no idea what you're talking about. See Arrhenius' work with CO2 rates and the subsequent temperature changes.

[Hulkein]

Don't most climatologists who don't have their head up their ass recognize that C02 rates rise as temperature rises and not the other way around?

[Bobmuhthol]

That's an interesting theory, since it makes no sense. You'd be able to simulate it in a controlled environment if that were the case, and I've never successfully formed CO2 by heating air slightly.

[Stanley Burrell]

MIAMI — Intensifying one of the hottest debates in science, a new report concludes that global warming is diminishing the number of hurricanes that strike Florida and the rest of the United States.

The study found that the planet's oceans have been warming for more than a century. No surprise there, but this may be: Those warmer oceans are producing stronger crosswinds that tend to suppress the development and growth of hurricanes, the scientists said.

"We found a gentle decrease in the trend of U.S. landfalling hurricanes as global oceans warmed up," said Chunzai Wang, an oceanographer and climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Some previous studies found that global warming was increasing the number and intensity of hurricanes, a conclusion that supported the conventional wisdom that warmer seas automatically turbocharge hurricane development.

The new study, by Wang and Sang-Ki Lee of the University of Miami, will be published today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004139813_oceans23.html

__________________________________________________ ____


Well this does seem to be an "Inconvenient (possible) Truth" :(

You know. I'm pretty sure we've had hurricanes as of ... Recently.

Scientific fact though.

[Hulkein]

That's an interesting theory, since it makes no sense. You'd be able to simulate it in a controlled environment if that were the case, and I've never successfully formed CO2 by heating air slightly.

Ice core studies show that CO2 increase lags behind temperature increase. When the temperature rises oceans release more CO2 because it is less soluble in cooler water. Unless you have an ocean in your controlled environment you may be out of luck.

[Stanley Burrell]

...

Ve don't believe in carbonic acid, Lebowski!

[Bobmuhthol]

I don't know the specific numbers, but that's an interesting theory. Carbonic acid is very unstable and spontaneously decomposes into H2O + CO2; that is, dissolved carbon dioxide will naturally break away from the water under normal conditions, in the same respect that carbonated drinks go flat after you open the bottle and release the pressure.

In any event, it seems VERY unlikely that CO2 levels in the ocean are solely responsible for the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2. And by unlikely, I mean impossible. Burning fuel is such an undeniable factor.

[Stanley Burrell]

I don't know the specific numbers, but that's an interesting theory. Carbonic acid is very unstable and spontaneously decomposes into H2O + CO2; that is, dissolved carbon dioxide will naturally break away from the water under normal conditions, in the same respect that carbonated drinks go flat after you open the bottle and release the pressure.

In any event, it seems VERY unlikely that CO2 levels in the ocean are solely responsible for the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2. And by unlikely, I mean impossible. Burning fuel is such an undeniable factor.

Dunno how science savvy you are (seems it quite a bit) but, if you value money, at all, you're going to be fighting an upward battle. ParkBandit is an Atheist Hulkein. However, these are the bricks in the wall that'll constantly loosening themselves out to fall on your toes. Because they know that they're the correct bricks when they fall out to hash out snert one-liners on a bulletin board.

I'd stay with the math, Bob. And focus on chem as pre-req and not core. The crux of the argument is going to keep getting more and more comical. Worship your econ' like a poker chip, though.

[Hulkein]

Why would he be fighting an upward battle? I'm not in the science field so it doesn't, in the grand scheme of things, matter what the hell I say.

I read an article that said what I said is all.

[BigWorm]

Dunno how science savvy you are (seems it quite a bit) but, if you value money, at all, you're going to be fighting an upward battle. ParkBandit is an Atheist Hulkein. However, these are the bricks in the wall that'll constantly loosening themselves out to fall on your toes. Because they know that they're the correct bricks when they fall out to hash out snert one-liners on a bulletin board.

I'd stay with the math, Bob. And focus on chem as pre-req and not core. The crux of the argument is going to keep getting more and more comical. Worship your econ' like a poker chip, though.

Econ is not Math! Econ doesn't have the cold, hard truth that only mathematics can offer. You know you're right about what you're saying because you can prove it*.

But if you really want to do Econ, do what all the people I know who had talent in that field did: major in Physics. You get a better Wall Street job that way, apparently.

* - Usually, given only basic axiomotic assumptions that every agrees on and all that shit.

[Stanley Burrell]

Why would he be fighting an upward battle?

Because despite having Ganalon as my current financial adviser, I know that NIH submissions are now 99.5% for funding. And within that is, "you're 100-200 scored? Fuck you. Go get published in Endocrinology again so I can laugh, you tree-hugger."

That should not make sense to you. And my telling you why it's an uphill battle because of the aforementioned shouldn't either. Unless you've researched science training as a law-man.

Anyway, like that other thread says, it'll be a boon to the planet when King George II is gone, but who knows what sort of bounce-back funding systems will have. And unlike my usual "Stanley drivel," this could actually make some sense to anyone if there was anyone on these boards who knows why "politics and science" is dangerous, and not just because they've heard it recited, or even agree with those three words. You have to experience how ass-backwards we've become firsthand. And that's why, as you're scratching your balls now, I tell Bob, or anyone for that matter, to invest in econ' heavily alongside science courses that fall short of Math and above Sociology.

[Stanley Burrell]

Econ is not Math! Econ doesn't have the cold, hard truth that only mathematics can offer. You know you're right about what you're saying because you can prove it*.

But if you really want to do Econ, do what all the people I know who had talent in that field did: major in Physics. You get a better Wall Street job that way, apparently.

* - Usually, given only basic axiomotic assumptions that every agrees on and all that shit.

I meant for the most basic understanding of human principles. Not to guide a career.

[BigWorm]

Yeah, Econ helps you to understand the basic tenet of human behavior: people are selfish and greedy.

[Gan]

Yeah, Econ helps you to understand the basic tenet of human behavior: people are selfish and greedy.

Greenspan's quote in my sig pretty much sums it up.

Oh wait, "Life is nasty, brutish, and short"...

Oh wait, "Show me the money!"...

Yea, folks are usually (mostly) [actually] greedy.

[Parkbandit]

<<Yea.. I read that the total CO2 emissions that are man made are just under 2% of the natural occurring CO2. So essentially, Gore and company believe that the 2% = doom of the planet.>>

It must suck to have no idea what you're talking about. See Arrhenius' work with CO2 rates and the subsequent temperature changes.


This from someone who still can't use the simple quote function on this message board correctly. :rofl:

There are other scientific works out there other than Arrhenius' that claim that man's contribution to the total CO2 output is less than 2%.

So maybe you could tell us what it's like to have no idea what you are talking about?

[Bobmuhthol]

<<There are other scientific works out there other than Arrhenius' that claim that man's contribution to the total CO2 output is less than 2%.>>

It doesn't take much to be a scientist, and then everything you say becomes a "scientific work." Again, look at something substantial.

<<So maybe you could tell us what it's like to have no idea what you are talking about?>>

No, not really, since you're a complete fucking RETARD if you think human activity is not responsible for more than 2% of CO2 production.

[Bobmuhthol]

What percentage of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been produced by human activities?

The answer to that question is complicated by the fact that human activity is not the only factor affecting the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Plants, both on land and in the oceans, continually absorb and release large amounts of carbon dioxide. Plants absorb carbon dioxide when they grow and release carbon dioxide as they decay. Forest fires, volcanoes, droughts and other natural phenomena can affect the natural rate of carbon dioxide uptake and release. Separating out the impact of human activity from all the other factors is difficult.

However, if you consider that the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was stable at 288 pmm for a long time before the industrial revolution and has since increased 367 ppm, one might assume that all the difference between 288 ppm and 370 ppm is attributable to human activity. This would be a high end estimate of the human impact. Under that assumption human activity accounts for 22% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

http://www.bigskyco2.org/FAQs-ghg.htm

[Parkbandit]

<<There are other scientific works out there other than Arrhenius' that claim that man's contribution to the total CO2 output is less than 2%.>>

It doesn't take much to be a scientist, and then everything you say becomes a "scientific work." Again, look at something substantial.

<<So maybe you could tell us what it's like to have no idea what you are talking about?>>

No, not really, since you're a complete fucking RETARD if you think human activity is not responsible for more than 2% of CO2 production.


It is not what I think dipshit, it is what MANY scientists who actually have graduated high school (unlike yourself) think. You should do some actual research.... maybe between buying your ninja swords and going bowling?

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/bob2.jpg

[Parkbandit]

http://www.bigskyco2.org/FAQs-ghg.htm

You are seriously using that as your source?

Holy shit..

[Bobmuhthol]

My favorite part is that you edited a picture from literally 5 years ago, and that you host it (again, for 5 years). And I'm supposed to think you're anything less than a fucking RETARD.

<<It is not what I think dipshit, it is what MANY scientists who actually have graduated high school (unlike yourself) think.>>

It's weird that I'm smarter than MANY scientists, none of which you have cited. What's up with that?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

That picture is 5 years old? Goddamn I've been posting here too long.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<You are seriously using that as your source?

Holy shit..>>

Montana State University sure isn't credible at all!

jk, they are, you're not

[Parkbandit]

My favorite part is that you edited a picture from literally 5 years ago, and that you host it (again, for 5 years). And I'm supposed to think you're anything less than a fucking RETARD.

<<It is not what I think dipshit, it is what MANY scientists who actually have graduated high school (unlike yourself) think.>>

It's weird that I'm smarter than MANY scientists, none of which you have cited. What's up with that?

Actually, I didn't think I had to explain photobucket to you. It would literally take me more effort to remove your picture than it would to simply leave it there. Not knowing how that works make you even more retarded to me... a feat that I didn't realize was possible. How's your Jeopardy appearance going? :rofl:

You THINK you are smarter than many scientists, but I haven't seen any evidence to this... actually more evidence to the contrary. You talk a good game.. for a 17 year old.

[Stunseed]

I normally don't post in these threads, but trying to discredit someone based from their age and not their information is kinda lame. He's got a decent arguement on his behalf and instead of offering a counter-point that defeats his line of reasoning your best in rebuttal is "rofl your trophies make me laugh in joy"?

Sorry for the addition, I'll get out of this now.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<How's your Jeopardy appearance going? :rofl:>>

Why is this supposed to be funny?

<<You THINK you are smarter than many scientists, but I haven't seen any evidence to this... actually more evidence to the contrary. You talk a good game.. for a 17 year old.>>

To be honest, I've never heard a single person (sans you) claim that humans are responsible for less than 2% of carbon dioxide production. Never. Not even the people who are vehemently opposed to the doomsday theory of global warming are that fucking stupid in the scientific community. As far as I'm concerned, I'm smarter than many imaginary scientists that you created in your nonfunctional mind, since I still haven't seen anyone else make such a stupid claim.

[Parkbandit]

<<How's your Jeopardy appearance going? :rofl:>>

Why is this supposed to be funny?

<<You THINK you are smarter than many scientists, but I haven't seen any evidence to this... actually more evidence to the contrary. You talk a good game.. for a 17 year old.>>

To be honest, I've never heard a single person (sans you) claim that humans are responsible for less than 2% of carbon dioxide production. Never. Not even the people who are vehemently opposed to the doomsday theory of global warming are that fucking stupid in the scientific community. As far as I'm concerned, I'm smarter than many imaginary scientists that you created in your nonfunctional mind, since I still haven't seen anyone else make such a stupid claim.

Much like Tsa'ah, you seem to be able to use google when it's convenient.. but when you are confronted with an opposing opinion, you are for some reason unable to figure out that whole google thing.

Here's a quote from the first source I found on google:

Man-made CO2 equivalent to linoleum on first floor of 100 story building

Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, explained how miniscule mankind’s CO2 emissions are in relation to the atmosphere.

“If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor,” D’Aleo wrote in an August 15, 2007 blog on his website www.IceCap.US. (LINK)

“Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038%). Only 2.75% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1% a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (+0.45%/year). We are responsible for just 0.001% of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor. This is likely because the oceans are a far more important sink for excess carbon dioxide than generally accepted,” he explained.

Here's the elusive link:

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=141&Itemid=1

This took me a grand total of 7.6 seconds to find. Granted, he ups the amount to 2.75... but a great deal smaller than the one you are touting as fact.

[Stanley Burrell]

Much like Tsa'ah, you seem to be able to use google when it's convenient.. but when you are confronted with an opposing opinion, you are for some reason unable to figure out that whole google thing.

Here's a quote from the first source I found on google:

Man-made CO2 equivalent to linoleum on first floor of 100 story building

Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, explained how miniscule mankind’s CO2 emissions are in relation to the atmosphere.

“If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor,” D’Aleo wrote in an August 15, 2007 blog on his website www.IceCap.US. (LINK)

“Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038%). Only 2.75% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1% a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (+0.45%/year). We are responsible for just 0.001% of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor. This is likely because the oceans are a far more important sink for excess carbon dioxide than generally accepted,” he explained.

Here's the elusive link:

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=141&Itemid=1

This took me a grand total of 7.6 seconds to find. Granted, he ups the amount to 2.75... but a great deal smaller than the one you are touting as fact.

I like the Google accusation, too.

Bob, if you see an old person in need of a hand crossing the street, help them.

But leave them off in the middle of I-95, just in case they're ParkBandits. F-itty-F-F-F-S, folks.

[Gan]

I like the Google accusation, too.

Bob, if you see an old person in need of a hand crossing the street, help them.

But leave them off in the middle of I-95, just in case they're ParkBandits. F-itty-F-F-F-S, folks.

For Fucks Sake, Stainley, shut up and let the two argue it out.

[BigWorm]

Greenspan's quote in my sig pretty much sums it up.

Oh wait, "Life is nasty, brutish, and short"...

Oh wait, "Show me the money!"...

Yea, folks are usually (mostly) [actually] greedy.

I find it amusing that we're deciding whether a quote from Thomas Hobbs or Jerry Maguire is more applicable here.

[Gan]

I find it amusing that we're deciding whether a quote from Thomas Hobbs or Jerry Maguire is more applicable here.

Or Greenspan.

And I thought it amusing too. Thats why I posted it.

[BigWorm]

You talk a good game.. for a 17 year old.

Ad hominem much?


www.IceCap.US.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...141&Itemid=1

And you consider these sources better than a major research university. The guy you quote was a TV meteorologist, not a scientist.

I take back what I said about you making calm, reasonable arguments. You were right, that was just my perception.

I think Bob can handle himself from here. I've disagreed with him before (especially when the Red Sox robbed the Cards of a World Series title), but I'll concede that he can make a solid argument most of the time.

[Bobmuhthol]

“Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038%). Only 2.75% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1% a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (+0.45%/year). We are responsible for just 0.001% of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor. This is likely because the oceans are a far more important sink for excess carbon dioxide than generally accepted,” he explained.

The high oceanic carbon dioxide levels should not be a favorable thing, and they in fact prove the case that humans ARE responsible for carbon dioxide production. Without anthropogenic effects, there would be less carbon dioxide in the oceans, not more. And I can't even begin to wonder where this guy got his data, because the increase in carbon dioxide rates of change is staggering compared to past results.

<<This took me a grand total of 7.6 seconds to find. Granted, he ups the amount to 2.75... but a great deal smaller than the one you are touting as fact.>>

Do you know what numbers you just cited? The amount of carbon dioxide vs. the entire atmosphere (okay, sounds reasonable as a statistic, but it isn't really relevant), and then randomly the definite amount from human activity (bullshit with no merit, just some random guy saying "hey, it's not that bad, LOL!").

Let's look at my source again:


However, if you consider that the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was stable at 288 pmm for a long time before the industrial revolution and has since increased 367 ppm, one might assume that all the difference between 288 ppm and 370 ppm is attributable to human activity. This would be a high end estimate of the human impact. Under that assumption human activity accounts for 22% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

What your source basically says is, "Look, there's not a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There was a little a long time ago, and there's a little bit more now." It falsely claims that human activity contributes 2.75% of NEW carbon dioxide, which is seriously the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Again, let's look at my source. They're saying that the concentration of carbon dioxide, not the amount in the atmosphere vs. the entire volume of the fucking atmosphere, has increased from 288 to 367 ppm. That's a concentration change of +27.43% in, say, 200 years. The makeup of the atmosphere is not intended to change like that, no matter how "miniscule" the actual volume change is.

Here's some more sources, since you think Montana State University isn't credible:


Because of the favorable site location, continuous monitoring, and careful selection and scrutiny of the data, the Mauna Loa record is considered to be a precise record and a reliable indicator of the regional trend in the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the middle layers of the troposphere. The Mauna Loa record shows a 19.4% increase in the mean annual concentration, from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004. The 1997-1998 increase in the annual growth rate of 2.87 ppmv represets the largest single yearly jump since the Mauna Loa record began in 1958. This represents an average annual increase of 1.4 ppmv per year. This is smaller than the average annual increase at the other stations because of the longer record and inclusion of earlier (smaller) annual increases.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm



So the concentration was fairly steady until about 200 years ago, and it started to rise during the industrial revolution. And the surplus CO2 accumulated during the last 40 years is almost twice the surplus built up during the previous 150 years. So during the last two centuries the growth rate has increased.
It can be seen from Fig 1 that the recent rate of increase has been fairly steady, but closer inspection reveals slight variations. The rate of increase itself is shown in Fig 2. The rate was about 0.7 ppm annually in the early 1960's, but it had more than doubled by 1994. There was a decline from 1.7 ppm/a around 1987 to 1.3 ppm/a five years later (possibly due to high oil prices in the early 1980's), but a renewed increase since then.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/mauna_loa_co2.gif
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/carbon.GIF

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/co2_change.html


http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/images/New%20Fig%201.gif

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

But okay, you're right, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have been virtually the same without humans.

[Gan]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

But okay, you're right, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have been virtually the same without humans.

The last graph is intersting in that if emissions were in addition to existing concentrations shouldnt the increase be noted in direct proportion (parallel increase) instead of convergent and eventual higher levels than existing concentrations?

Would that denote a decrease in atmospheric concentrations during times where evidence of increased emissions were present?

Maybe I"m not understanding the graph correctly. :shrug:

[Bobmuhthol]

<<shouldnt the increase be noted in direct proportion (parallel increase) instead of convergent and eventual higher levels than existing concentrations?>>

The graph is on two different scales. The orange line (concentration) shows atmospheric CO2 in parts per million. The blue line (emissions) shows how much carbon dioxide humans have produced each year in millions of metric tons. The intersection of the lines is coincidental; the only comparison you can make is that both lines increase at the same time and approximately the same magnitude individually.

In short: as more CO2 is produced (in terms of mass), the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere also increases (in terms of parts per million).

<<Would that denote a decrease in atmospheric concentrations during times where evidence of increased emissions were present?>>

The only time you can say CO2 concentrations decrease is when the orange line shows a downward slope, which isn't often or really substantial on this graph.

[Gan]

I suppose the question that nags me is how accurate are the methods for measuring CO2 emissions? Locally, nationally, globally. How can misrepresentations be uncovered if we're relying on nation-state agencies to report (ie. China, US Industry, etc) where the impetus is on a bias to under-report for popular reasonse.

I seem to recall an article where the measurement accuracy was furiouisly debated along with the methodology of measuring existing levels of CO2 in such a dynamic atmosphere as Earth (accounting for prevailing wind patterns, jet stream, temperature change gradients across regions as well as in populated/non populated areas).

Not only measuring overall CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere but then seperating naturally occurring CO2 emissions from man-made industrial emissions (on an extraction level this is identified by the variant isotopes of C12/C13/C14 - 12 being the naturally occurring one which plants will photosynthesize first before other base CO2 isotopes).

It just lacks the finality of solid baseline numbers to say its a 'definate' rather than qualifying it as a best guess or most probable theory.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<It just lacks the finality of solid baseline numbers to say its a 'definate' rather than qualifying it as a best guess or most probable theory.>>

That's exactly true, which is what made "2.75%" a really bullshit number for a meterologist to come up with for anthropogenic CO2 production.

As far as the methodology for determining CO2 levels, I honestly have no idea how it's collected, but specific numbers are not really the issue. Obviously, there's a lot of room for error - the unit of measurement here is millions of metric tons. Being off even a hundred million metric tons doesn't really affect the data when you look at the graph.

Concentration levels are much, much easier to discern, however. They are immediately available and measurable, so there's little dispute over the trend of increasing concentration. As I've said, the main issue here isn't "how much CO2 is in the air," it's "how much more CO2 is there per unit of air."

[Gan]

So wouldnt the concentration of CO2 over a population area be different than an unpopulated area? I would say thats a given. So why is the target global when the concentrations are only regional afectations at best, local afectations at worst?

I think if we could identify overall existance of CO2 in our present global atmosphere, then discern what the ratio is between naturally occurring and industrial emitted then we could have a better grasp as to what our actual impact is as an industrial civilization.

I agree that efforts need to be made to reduce the amount of pollution emitted, and I agree that man has some impact on our atmosphere as evident in experiencing smog and some instances of acid rain (that not attributable to volcanic eruptions); however, attempting to shift an alarming blame on man for changes in climate patterns and overall temperatures solely on mankind in such a dynamic atmosphere and environment that we're still not 100% omnicscient of is somewhat of a logical fallacy.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<So wouldnt the concentration of CO2 over a population area be different than an unpopulated area? I would say thats a given. So why is the target global when the concentrations are only regional afectations at best, local afectations at worst?>>

It would obviously vary slightly, but gases naturally disperse. The atmosphere is relatively constant globally. Especially in this situation, where there are very few areas of the world that don't burn fuel or participate in any industrial activity.

<<however, attempting to shift an alarming blame on man for changes in climate patterns and overall temperatures solely on mankind in such a dynamic atmosphere and environment that we're still not 100% omnicscient of is somewhat of a logical fallacy.>>

Well, to be fair, there would be a lot less CO2 in the atmosphere with cleaner practices; it's hard to blame anyone but humans for a lot of the trends.

[Gan]

The atmosphere is relatively constant globally. Especially in this situation, where there are very few areas of the world that don't burn fuel or participate in any industrial activity.
I have to disagree on this part. I dont see our atmosphere as constant. Especially with vast differences in temperature, wind currents, terrain, etc. Some areas would naturally lend to having a lesser or greater amounts of CO2 concentration all combined with the huge variable of prevailing wind patterns. Not to mention that population centers are not constant in all areas, which also means varying degrees of concentrated emissions.



Well, to be fair, there would be a lot less CO2 in the atmosphere with cleaner practices; it's hard to blame anyone but humans for a lot of the trends.
Humans impact our environment just by existing, so yes, there is an impact, the degree to which that impact is observed or measured is what isnt exact. Its easy to maintain a clean house if you dont live in it. The challenge is keeping it clean while living in it.

[Ogreslayer]

Global warming is such a wonderful thing. Any trend or deviation from historical averages can be attributed to it!

No one is disagreeing that the earth's temperature is rising slowly. However, to the faithful it is not enough to agree to that data, one must profess true belief that man is the cause. (Whatever caused any previous warming periods simply couldn't be a factor in this one, it's the Industrial Revolution this time!) One must also believe that there is no meteorological phenomenon that cannot be explained as a consequence of global warming (and therefore, as a consequence of man).

This makes the global warming adherents appear less as rigorous students of science, more as religious fanatics.

What would it take to convince a believer that the theory that global warming is attributable to man is false, or at least greatly exaggerated? The concept of Science is based on skepticism in the absence of proof. I, at least, would take some comfort in knowing that there is enough skepticism left in our scientific community to acknowledge when a theory is not well supported, or to consider alternate theories.

We are told that due to global warming, hurricanes will be stronger and more plentiful. So if we don't have stronger and more plentiful hurricanes, maybe we're wrong about global warming?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060316182908.htm

Wait...

Sorry, we meant that there isn't a strong connection between global warming and hurricanes. But we couldn't be wrong about man's role in global warming.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060510095522.htm

Wait...

Sorry, we were right the first time. Severe storms and frequency are due to global warming! But we couldn't be wrong about man's role in global warming.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060815160934.htm

Hrm...

Sorry, we meant that due to global warming, hurricanes will be weaker and less frequent. But we couldn't be wrong about man's role in global warming.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080124115808.htm

Is now when we genuflect?

And it's not just hurricanes! Due to global warming, the earth will spin more slowly. So if the world doesn't spin more slowly, maybe we're wrong about global warming?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/02/13/earth.gas/

Wait...

Sorry, we meant that due to global warming, the world will spin faster. But we couldn't be wrong about man's role in global warming.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-shortens-day

Oh.

Extreme cold?

Extreme heat?

Less frequent extreme temperatures, and greater normalization?

Drought?

Above average rainfall, or a lack of significant trending?

It's all global warming and man is the cause.

One doesn't need to be a meteorologist or climate expert to recognize arguments as post hoc ergo propter hoc, or to see that many of our climatologists scientists have become more like acolytes than critical analysts. Man could be a factor in the warming trend, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, simple and economically feasible changes that could mitigate the warming trend make sense. But large shifts in policy with major economic and social impacts require more concrete evidence, not just theories.

[Bobmuhthol]

I agree for the most part with Ogreslayer's post, however, the people who cry global warming all the time and those who don't alike should be in agreement that CO2 levels are definitely rising and CO2 is definitely a greenhouse gas.

[Whimsi]

trying to discredit someone based from their age and not their information is kinda lame. He's got a decent arguement on his behalf and instead of offering a counter-point that defeats his line of reasoning your best in rebuttal is "rofl your trophies make me laugh in joy"?

Agreed. Totally lame.

Not surprising in the least though considering the caricature that is that particular poster.

[Parkbandit]

Nice graphs... but graphs are expressions of opinion and not always fact. Here's some that show the direct opposite of the debate:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/image270f.gif

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/gg.gif

And my favorite one:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/112747980_56d538fd9d_o.jpg

[Bobmuhthol]

<<but graphs are expressions of opinion>>

That's an expression of retard.

Everything you've posted has been a flat out statement saying "this is what human contribution is, and here are different ways of showing it." These three images you just posted don't even say anything other than that man-made contributions to THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT are nowhere near as large in magnitude as the earth's natural state. That's no different than your other irrelevant data. We're talking about concentration of CO2, not how much more of a factor water vapor is relative to the greenhouse effect. I'm not necessarily debating the accuracy of these specific sources, but they're misleading and don't speak to the topic.