Australian Politics Forum - Global Warming course for non Science Majors

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Global Warming course for non Science Majors Reply #15 - Apr 21^st, 2010 at 8:42am
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Global Warming course for non Science Majors
Reply #16 - Apr 21^st, 2010 at 8:56am

Soren wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 3:02pm:

You are only pissing in the (head)wind. The point is that for decades bacteria were not thought to be the cause and certianly not to the extent that they turned out to be. Despite decades of resaertch. autopsies and research projects. And I reckon the climate in man's stomach is a lot less complex than the Earth's climate. Plus you have a very lange supply of stomachs to experiment with. And still, it turned out to be bacteria to an unexpected extent and the reaction was 'blow me down wiv a feather, gov', followed by a rush knowing nods. Nobody want's to be left behind when the consensus changes.

As to how many times you said/I said:

You may have said thay there are other influences. yet you mention them only to discount them or trace them back to CO2.

You do take CO2 to be the overwhelmingly most important variable that drives change at the present. But the proportion of that responsibility you actually attribute to CO2 is unknown. Is it 85% ? 10? 50? 99%? (or is 99% is the degree of certainty that CO2 has SOME impact?)

As Lindzen says, uncontrobersially, the debate is about the how much influence human CO2 has. That is not settled by a very long shot.

Before you can answer that question for a relatively short period such as 1950 to 2010, you need to be able to filter out the 'noise', by taking a running mean over a long enough period to remove El Nino Oscillations and Sunspot minima and maxima. You need to filter out the corrugations before you can work out the slope.

What we are not talking about is the natural Greenhouse effect. We are talking about additions to that effect, and for that, most of the action occurs high in the atmosphere.

Taking about an 11 year running mean, it becomes obvious that the additional warming effect of carbon dioxide is around about 72% of the greenhouse gas warming. Methane is around 18%, and nitrous oxide accounts for about 9% (on Year 2000 figures, calculated on a 100 year horizon)

On a global basis, Power Stations account for about 21% of the GHG emissions, Industrial processes account for about 17%, transportation 14% and agricultural practices 12.5%. Land use and burning of biomass accounts for 10%, fossil fuel processing and distrubution about 11% and waste disposal and treatment 3.4%.

(again on Year 2000 figures.)

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Global Warming course for non Science Majors
Reply #17 - Apr 21^st, 2010 at 9:08am

muso wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 8:56am:

We are talking about additions to that effect, and for that, most of the action occurs high in the atmosphere.

Taking about an 11 year running mean, it becomes obvious that the additional warming effect of carbon dioxide is around about 72% of the greenhouse gas warming. Methane is around 18%, and nitrous oxide accounts for about 9% (on Year 2000 figures, calculated on a 100 year horizon)

On a global basis, Power Stations account for about 21% of the GHG emissions, Industrial processes account for about 17%, transportation 14% and agricultural practices 12.5%. Land use and burning of biomass accounts for 10%, fossil fuel processing and distrubution about 11% and waste disposal and treatment 3.4%.

(again on Year 2000 figures.)

Soooo.... how much is that additional warming? 0.75 degree C over a hunderd years?

What is the natuaral warming rate? - we have been coming out of all sorts of cold periods for all sorts of length of time. It was warmr than now in the Middle Ages, in Europe at least. What stopped that warming? ANd then it was colder in the Baroque era than in the 20th century. What reversed that?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Global Warming course for non Science Majors
Reply #18 - Apr 21^st, 2010 at 9:39am

Soren wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 9:08am:

muso wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 8:56am:

We are talking about additions to that effect, and for that, most of the action occurs high in the atmosphere.

Taking about an 11 year running mean, it becomes obvious that the additional warming effect of carbon dioxide is around about 72% of the greenhouse gas warming. Methane is around 18%, and nitrous oxide accounts for about 9% (on Year 2000 figures, calculated on a 100 year horizon)

On a global basis, Power Stations account for about 21% of the GHG emissions, Industrial processes account for about 17%, transportation 14% and agricultural practices 12.5%. Land use and burning of biomass accounts for 10%, fossil fuel processing and distrubution about 11% and waste disposal and treatment 3.4%.

(again on Year 2000 figures.)

Soooo.... how much is that additional warming? 0.75 degree C over a hunderd years?

What is the natuaral warming rate? - we have been coming out of all sorts of cold periods for all sorts of length of time. It was warmr than now in the Middle Ages, in Europe at least. What stopped that warming? ANd then it was colder in the Baroque era than in the 20th century. What reversed that?

There is no such thing as a natural warming rate, and again you take it outside the scope of the last 50 years.

The natural warming rate for the last 50 years was slightly negative. Superimposed on this was a strong warming signal due to the effects of greenhouse gases, as confirmed by satellite data.

The answer to your question is mainly related to variable solar activity, with some explosive volcanic activity thrown in for good measure. Even the beginning of the 20th century had a small bump due to solar activity. How do we know that the current warming is not due to solar changes? - well nowadays we can measure the solar output. It's really that simple.

A lot of things have gone out of whack in the last 50 years, including tree rings.

As has been said before, it's the rate of change rather than the absolute global temperatures. The species of coral has gradually changed with the changing global climate. If the warming effect were more gradual, then corals could certainly adapt. Evolution requires a large number of generations.

We're talking about a temperature rise of about 2 degrees C as soon as 2050 depending on what action is taken.

With another rise of 2 degrees C , 97% of the worlds coral reefs will be obliterated.

One million of the earth’s species could be annihilated by 2050.

At a rise of 2 degrees, the projection is for economic losses for some countries and gains for others. At 3 degrees rise, virtually all countries would suffer considerable economic loss.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 21^st, 2010 at 9:56am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged