how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[itfitzme]

Here is a liberal reference

the+physics+of+atmospheres+john+houghton+pdf

 

[Foxfyre]

Yep. Folks I know who have geology degrees have to take a LOT of physics. In fact the two fields are so closely interrelated, a lot of students opt for degrees that merge the two into one field: geophysics.

 

[IanC]

itfitzme is a bizarro-world polar bear. blizzards of graphs and equations, yet he just doesn't understand why his claims are wrong.

he claims that ~75% of the variance in temps is caused by the level of CO2. but that is only because that is the only factor he is looking at. hahahahaha, just the error bars in our understand of water based energy flow is enough to swamp the effect of CO2. roughly 8% of surface radiation is mainly affected by CO2, and the largest portion of that possible effect has already happened, yet somehow he has talked himself into believing that CO2 drives the climate! bad framing of mathematical questions leads to wrong answers just as surely as faulty arithmetic skills, although the person thinks they are clever.

 

[westwall]

Yep. Folks I know who have geology degrees have to take a LOT of physics. In fact the two fields are so closely interrelated, a lot of students opt for degrees that merge the two into one field: geophysics.

Yes indeed. I was heading towards geophysics till I opted for environmental geology. I still stay current though!

 

[westwall]

Here is a liberal reference

the+physics+of+atmospheres+john+houghton+pdf

Science is neither "liberal" or "conservative". If a paper can be judged to be so, there is a problem. A HUGE problem.

 

[PMZ]

Lots of educational claims not supported by evidence. Lot's of pseudo science not supported by evidence. Merely what people wish was true. Well, bad news. The cult lied. You're not entitled to a thing. The truth is the same for all of us. That for which there is evidence.

 

[westwall]

Lots of educational claims not supported by evidence. Lot's of pseudo science not supported by evidence. Merely what people wish was true. Well, bad news. The cult lied. You're not entitled to a thing. The truth is the same for all of us. That for which there is evidence.

Excellent description of the AGW cult. Thanks for that admission!

 

[itfitzme]

Lots of educational claims not supported by evidence. Lot's of pseudo science not supported by evidence. Merely what people wish was true. Well, bad news. The cult lied. You're not entitled to a thing. The truth is the same for all of us. That for which there is evidence.

Excellent description of the AGW cult. Thanks for that admission!

Troll

 

[itfitzme]

The basis for AWG

That is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, also empirical.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Oh, and looky here,

That's the history is increasing temp and CO2.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

 

[PMZ]

The basis for AWG

That is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, also empirical.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Oh, and looky here,

That's the history is increasing temp and CO2.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

People educated and interested in science seem typically interested in sharing the insights that their education and experience allow them. And learning more in the process. Natural, I guess.

Clearly we see among these pages a lot of that going on. Some of it effectively, depending both on the recipient and the scientist. Some of it a waste of everybody's time and effort.

While there are many perspectives from which to approach the extent to which ongoing teaching efforts should be pursued, the most pragmatic is political.

Politically, the efforts to find the least expensive path to, and the least expensive satisfaction of the demand for, sustainable, benign, and efficient energy to the point of use are underway. Doers are doing. Perhaps not as effectively as could be, but progress is rarely pretty. In typical fashion, the path is bumpy, twisty, with never ending uphills and many fewer compensatory downhills.

When the customer says "yes" it's best to stop selling.

Here's one stake in the ground as a record of progress.

Google "Cresecent Dunes power tower, Tonopah, Nevada".

110 megawatts, with zero fuel costs, zero ongoing emissions, matched to peak demand from Las Vegas, 12 hours per day.

The Flat Earth Society will never go away, but in our democracy they've already been rendered irrelevent. Impotent.

The action now is in progress, not stasis. The discussion is about engineering and investment, not the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Our past and future will be as different as night and day. We've learned again not to take Mother Nature for granted, and to use our unique intelligence to solve our problems realistically. Not based on what we wish was true.

Progress.

 

[PMZ]

The fourth is over, of course, but the time is always right for a reminder to those who would drag us down.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/v/6TPgJSZf5Vw?version=3&autohide=1&autoplay=1[/ame]

 

[gslack]

The basis for AWG

That is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, also empirical.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Oh, and looky here,

That's the history is increasing temp and CO2.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

People educated and interested in science seem typically interested in sharing the insights that their education and experience allow them. And learning more in the process. Natural, I guess.

Clearly we see among these pages a lot of that going on. Some of it effectively, depending both on the recipient and the scientist. Some of it a waste of everybody's time and effort.

While there are many perspectives from which to approach the extent to which ongoing teaching efforts should be pursued, the most pragmatic is political.

Politically, the efforts to find the least expensive path to, and the least expensive satisfaction of the demand for, sustainable, benign, and efficient energy to the point of use are underway. Doers are doing. Perhaps not as effectively as could be, but progress is rarely pretty. In typical fashion, the path is bumpy, twisty, with never ending uphills and many fewer compensatory downhills.

When the customer says "yes" it's best to stop selling.

Here's one stake in the ground as a record of progress.

Google "Cresecent Dunes power tower, Tonopah, Nevada".

110 megawatts, with zero fuel costs, zero ongoing emissions, matched to peak demand from Las Vegas, 12 hours per day.

The Flat Earth Society will never go away, but in our democracy they've already been rendered irrelevent. Impotent.

The action now is in progress, not stasis. The discussion is about engineering and investment, not the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Our past and future will be as different as night and day. We've learned again not to take Mother Nature for granted, and to use our unique intelligence to solve our problems realistically. Not based on what we wish was true.

Progress.

LOL, dude you are in love with everything you write. Seriously man you just wrote paragraphs of crap.. Number of angels dancing on the head of a pin?

WTF?

You are tweaking again aren't you troll...

 

[Foxfyre]

PMZ's pretty cut and pasted charts show roughly a 1.3 degree farenheight increase in global temperature over the last 133 years. (Anybody who thinks that 1.3 degrees is accurate without question, can we have a discussion re those bridges I have for sale?)

Okay, I can cut and paste pretty charts and graphs (or make my own) as easily as anybody else. So here is one showing the use of fossil fuels for the last 238 years.

History of Energy Use in the United States

It is important to note that the same source goes into some detail to illustrate that burning wood, in order to produce the same amount of energy as coal, is just as dirty as coal so far as CO2 emissions are concerned. Petroleum, natural gas are cleaner but still produce some CO2. Wind and solar don't factor in yet as both together still produce less than 1% of the world energy use.

So the population of the Earth in 1830 was 1 billion
1930, 100 years later, 2 billion.
1990 - 5.1 billion
Present roughly 7 billion

All of those people have used some form of CO2 producing energy for all that time while the population was increasing 700%.

And yet the use of all that energy has raised the average temperature of the Earth by less than 2%.

And we are supposed to worry about the fuel people are using rather than worry about the population explosion and how we are going to feed all those people?

Seems to me climate change via fossil fuels is the very least of our worries.

 

[itfitzme]

PMZ's pretty cut and pasted charts show roughly a 1.3 degree farenheight increase in global temperature over the last 133 years. *(Anybody who thinks that 1.3 degrees is accurate without question, can we have a discussion re those bridges I have for sale?)

Okay, I can cut and paste pretty charts and graphs (or make my own) as easily as anybody else. * So here is one showing the use of fossil fuels for the last 238 years. *

History of Energy Use in the United States

It is important to note that the same source goes into some detail to illustrate that burning wood, in order to produce the same amount of energy as coal, is just as dirty as coal so far as CO2 emissions are concerned. *Petroleum, natural gas are cleaner but still produce some CO2. *Wind and solar don't factor in yet as both together still produce less than 1% of the world energy use.

So the population of the Earth in 1830 was 1 billion
1930, 100 years later, 2 billion.
1990 - 5.1 billion
Present roughly 7 billion

All of those people have used some form of CO2 producing energy for all that time while the population was increasing 700%.

And yet the use of all that energy has raised the average temperature of the Earth by less than 2%.

And we are supposed to worry about the fuel people are using rather than worry about the population explosion and how we are going to feed all those people?

Seems to me climate change via fossil fuels is the very least of our worries.

Okay, I can cut and paste pretty charts and graphs (or make my own) as easily as anybody else.

And one would hardly expect you to create your own, or describe the data in the detail that the visual presentation provides when some organization has provided it. That's what we pay taxes for. *It's our data and graphs.*

So here is one showing the use of fossil fuels for the last 238 years. *

Exactly the point. *And I presented it already.

There is no doubt that global mean temperature has increased on CO2 (~76%) and other GHG (~24%). *There is no doubt that population, productivity, consumption, RGDP, and fuel usage are related. *As population and productivity increase, so goes energy usage and GHG.

"Less than 2 degrees" is an accurate algebraic statement regarding the mean global temperature. *

It is meaningless in context of climate, agriculture, biology, weather, as wel as variations across longitudes and latitudes. It is meaningless because it says nothing of the consequences of what "more than 0 degrees" means. *It's like saying, "she's only two days pregnant" or "it's just a small hole in his eye." *"It's just a small oil leak", "a small leak in the plane's fuel line". *"But it was just a small fire"

Human beings have an internally regulated body temperature and an internally regulated home and work environment. *Yeah, what's 2 degrees.

Physics is easy. *It gets far more complex when it is climate. Now add biology to climate, the impact of climate on biological systems.

Agriculture is a biological issue impacted by climate. *Surely you read the biology impact link previously posted.

As the connectivity gets further away from the center, of CO2 and temp, the variables and interactions become more complex. *In one direction, it goes from CO2 to energy to fuel usage to poulation and efficiency of production. *In the other direction it goes to climate, localized weather, and biology.

Any belief in absolute certainty is an illusion of an ignorant mind. Not one individual can guarantee every detail of even the simplest activities, like commuting to work. Not one car is predictable except in that it likely will follow pre-established procedures. *The general trend is predictable, the details are not. *And the further the commute is, the larger the variability in commute time, in general. *It's easy to be generally accurate. Absolute precision is an illusion.

At the core, CO2 causes global temperature increase. *As the system is traced, as impacted by the source driving factors, and as it*impacts the downstream climate and biological systems, it becomes more complex. *And deniers get hung up on the complexity that isn't accounted for to the last 0.000001 joule. *Regardless, it changes nothing of the underlying fact that AWG is simply and unequivically demonstrated as fact. *The rest is simply how fast amd how bad.

Wind and solar don't factor in yet as both together still produce less than 1% of the world energy use.

They only produce 1% now, globally. *They produce 19% in Sacramento. *13.2% domestically. *That would be the point.

Climate via fossil fuels is the biggest of worries because it is Temp vs CO2 that connects population to environment and agriculture. *And it is guaranteed that population growth will end when agriculture plummets as a result of the impact.

The question isn't if it will. *The questions are, how bad will it be before it ends; how will it end; and who will be impacted. The history of mankind has been one of managing nature or be managed by it. *Nature doesn't care if we know or not. *Nature doesn't care if we thought it might be okay.*

Nature is the ultimate authority. Nature is absolulte in objectivity. *It caresmnot what we believe. It is unforgiving. It doesn't*care if we say we're sorry.*

 

[PMZ]

PMZ's pretty cut and pasted charts show roughly a 1.3 degree farenheight increase in global temperature over the last 133 years. (Anybody who thinks that 1.3 degrees is accurate without question, can we have a discussion re those bridges I have for sale?)

Okay, I can cut and paste pretty charts and graphs (or make my own) as easily as anybody else. So here is one showing the use of fossil fuels for the last 238 years.

History of Energy Use in the United States

It is important to note that the same source goes into some detail to illustrate that burning wood, in order to produce the same amount of energy as coal, is just as dirty as coal so far as CO2 emissions are concerned. Petroleum, natural gas are cleaner but still produce some CO2. Wind and solar don't factor in yet as both together still produce less than 1% of the world energy use.

So the population of the Earth in 1830 was 1 billion
1930, 100 years later, 2 billion.
1990 - 5.1 billion
Present roughly 7 billion

All of those people have used some form of CO2 producing energy for all that time while the population was increasing 700%.

And yet the use of all that energy has raised the average temperature of the Earth by less than 2%.

And we are supposed to worry about the fuel people are using rather than worry about the population explosion and how we are going to feed all those people?

Seems to me climate change via fossil fuels is the very least of our worries.

To be submitted in evidence as proof of the total lack of science employed by deniers.

The consequence which will cause expensive mitigation to the human race are changes to weather that impact the land use choices in evidence today.

Are our cities at peril due to higher sea levels? Are our farms at peril due to a different distribution of rainfall? Do we have population centers at more risk from extreme weather events like tornadoes and hurricanes? Do we have population centers which will require significant transport of water to support their needs?

Whatever climate change that produces those consequences is going to cost us lives and money.

It doesn't matter at all whether you think that the climatic temperature change that brings about those consequences is a big number or not.

 

[itfitzme]

PMZ's pretty cut and pasted charts show roughly a 1.3 degree farenheight increase in global temperature over the last 133 years. (Anybody who thinks that 1.3 degrees is accurate without question, can we have a discussion re those bridges I have for sale?)

Okay, I can cut and paste pretty charts and graphs (or make my own) as easily as anybody else. So here is one showing the use of fossil fuels for the last 238 years.

History of Energy Use in the United States

It is important to note that the same source goes into some detail to illustrate that burning wood, in order to produce the same amount of energy as coal, is just as dirty as coal so far as CO2 emissions are concerned. Petroleum, natural gas are cleaner but still produce some CO2. Wind and solar don't factor in yet as both together still produce less than 1% of the world energy use.

So the population of the Earth in 1830 was 1 billion
1930, 100 years later, 2 billion.
1990 - 5.1 billion
Present roughly 7 billion

All of those people have used some form of CO2 producing energy for all that time while the population was increasing 700%.

And yet the use of all that energy has raised the average temperature of the Earth by less than 2%.

And we are supposed to worry about the fuel people are using rather than worry about the population explosion and how we are going to feed all those people?

Seems to me climate change via fossil fuels is the very least of our worries.

To be submitted in evidence as proof of the total lack of science employed by deniers.

The consequence which will cause expensive mitigation to the human race are changes to weather that impact the land use choices in evidence today.

Are our cities at peril due to higher sea levels? Are our farms at peril due to a different distribution of rainfall? Do we have population centers at more risk from extreme weather events like tornadoes and hurricanes? Do we have population centers which will require significant transport of water to support their needs?

Whatever climate change that produces those consequences is going to cost us lives and money.

It doesn't matter at all whether you think that the climatic temperature change that brings about those consequences is a big number or not.

Maybe it should be expressed as 1300 millidegrees centigrade?

 

[gslack]

Why don't you CO2, IR, doubling effect believers just do the simple and obvious thing?

Take all your internet "science" and fake degrees in whatever it is you're an expert of today, and create something that harnesses this amazing property of CO2?

Make a CO2 oven, or a CO2 heat engine of some sort. It should be simple, you all claim it's a settled science and it's all fact, so just harness this energy resource...

Make something,one thing, that actually confirms the effects you attribute to CO2 and you have all the proof you will ever need.. SO go forth and create this CO2 miracle machine, I'll wait here...

 

[IanC]

PMZ's pretty cut and pasted charts show roughly a 1.3 degree farenheight increase in global temperature over the last 133 years. (Anybody who thinks that 1.3 degrees is accurate without question, can we have a discussion re those bridges I have for sale?)

Okay, I can cut and paste pretty charts and graphs (or make my own) as easily as anybody else. So here is one showing the use of fossil fuels for the last 238 years.

History of Energy Use in the United States

It is important to note that the same source goes into some detail to illustrate that burning wood, in order to produce the same amount of energy as coal, is just as dirty as coal so far as CO2 emissions are concerned. Petroleum, natural gas are cleaner but still produce some CO2. Wind and solar don't factor in yet as both together still produce less than 1% of the world energy use.

So the population of the Earth in 1830 was 1 billion
1930, 100 years later, 2 billion.
1990 - 5.1 billion
Present roughly 7 billion

All of those people have used some form of CO2 producing energy for all that time while the population was increasing 700%.

And yet the use of all that energy has raised the average temperature of the Earth by less than 2%.

And we are supposed to worry about the fuel people are using rather than worry about the population explosion and how we are going to feed all those people?

Seems to me climate change via fossil fuels is the very least of our worries.

To be submitted in evidence as proof of the total lack of science employed by deniers.

The consequence which will cause expensive mitigation to the human race are changes to weather that impact the land use choices in evidence today.

Are our cities at peril due to higher sea levels? Are our farms at peril due to a different distribution of rainfall? Do we have population centers at more risk from extreme weather events like tornadoes and hurricanes? Do we have population centers which will require significant transport of water to support their needs?

Whatever climate change that produces those consequences is going to cost us lives and money.

It doesn't matter at all whether you think that the climatic temperature change that brings about those consequences is a big number or not.

Maybe it should be expressed as 1300 millidegrees centigrade?

Par for thecourse with respect to your mathematical prowess.

Two extra significant figures that are unwarranted. And a total screw up between Fahrenheit and Celsius.

 

[IanC]

Why don't you CO2, IR, doubling effect believers just do the simple and obvious thing?

Take all your internet "science" and fake degrees in whatever it is you're an expert of today, and create something that harnesses this amazing property of CO2?

Make a CO2 oven, or a CO2 heat engine of some sort. It should be simple, you all claim it's a settled science and it's all fact, so just harness this energy resource...

Make something,one thing, that actually confirms the effects you attribute to CO2 and you have all the proof you will ever need.. SO go forth and create this CO2 miracle machine, I'll wait here...

And a denizen from the otther extreme starts to chirp.

 

[itfitzme]

Jon -

So a drop of botulism in a swimming pool is fine, right? It doesn't change the colour of the water at all, does it?

I don't know why people complained about radiocative Caesium near Chernobyl - there were only tiny amounts in the soil and water, and radioactivity occurs naturally in soil right around the world?

co2 is not botulism

get real

CO2 isn't a jug of water water, either.