Is Global Warming Possible?

[DeeJayH]

It is coming - that is what we are saying - and that is what a whole lot of denialists do not want to believe

I have heard that delusions are more enjoyable than reality.
Sorry chicken little, the sky is not falling.

there is a reason for that fairy tale

 

[gmeyers1944]

Didn't say my saying it makes it so. Simple math does though.

Nothing is that simple about global warming.

 

[misterman]

Nothing is that simple about global warming.

But that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about whether 0.08% of something can matter. It most certainly can. You can't simply look at a number and declare that it is irrelevant just because it is small.

If you are chin deep in 5 feet of water and I only add a few more inches, that's not much, but it sure matters.

 

[ptif219]

But that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about whether 0.08% of something can matter. It most certainly can. You can't simply look at a number and declare that it is irrelevant just because it is small.

If you are chin deep in 5 feet of water and I only add a few more inches, that's not much, but it sure matters.

So it is the 0.08% and not the 99.2%?

 

[bowerbird]

So it is the 0.08% and not the 99.2%?

1) where on earth did you get that stat - and "back of a cornflakes packet" is NOT a reputable source
2) doesn't matter if it is 0.0001% as long as that is over and above the ability of the system to maintain stasis and it is cumulative

Do you know what cumulative means? Because that has been Misterman's point for the last four pages

 

[misterman]

So it is the 0.08% and not the 99.2%?

Yes, exactly.

If the 99.2% is a normal level, and you add enough to make it abnormal, it can make a huge difference even though it is relatively small. It is the marginal difference that matters.

This is the difference between ratios and absolute values. It's basic math, and a simple scientific principle. If you can't even grasp that, you are unqualified to discuss this issue.

I've used an analogy to explain it. Did you understand it?

 

[Gill]

Yes, exactly.

If the 99.2% is a normal level, and you add enough to make it abnormal, it can make a huge difference even though it is relatively small. It is the marginal difference that matters.

This is the difference between ratios and absolute values. It's basic math, and a simple scientific principle. If you can't even grasp that, you are unqualified to discuss this issue.

I've used an analogy to explain it. Did you understand it?

Do you have any idea how much the temperature would rise due to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere??

 

[misterman]

Do you have any idea how much the temperature would rise due to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere??

You seem to. You tell me. And tell me why it matters while you're at it.

But first tell me if you understand the principle of marginal increases, which I've explained to you.

This is about CHANGE in temperature, not just the presence of all heat on the planet. The first 98.2% of CO2 is part of the reason Earth is not a lifeless frozen ball. The last 0.8 is why we are trapping additional heat to make the temperature go up. Do you understand that or not?

 

[Gill]

You seem to. You tell me. And tell me why it matters while you're at it.

But first tell me if you understand the principle of marginal increases, which I've explained to you.

This is about CHANGE in temperature, not just the presence of all heat on the planet. The first 98.2% of CO2 is part of the reason Earth is not a lifeless frozen ball. The last 0.8 is why we are trapping additional heat to make the temperature go up. Do you understand that or not?

Let me see if I understand your post.

1. You wonder why the amount of increase in temperature due to increased CO2 matters.

then...

2. You state that it is about the CHANGE in temperature.....

Which is it????

 

[misterman]

Let me see if I understand your post.

1. You wonder why the amount of increase in temperature due to increased CO2 matters.

then...

2. You state that it is about the CHANGE in temperature.....

Which is it????

No, you don't understand my post.

I did not "wonder why the amount of increase in temperature due to increased CO2 matters." I wondered why how much doubling it cause matters, which you brought up. So just make your point instead of playing games.

Do YOU understand the principle of marginal change?

 

[Gill]

No, you don't understand my post.

I did not "wonder why the amount of increase in temperature due to increased CO2 matters." I wondered why how much doubling it cause matters, which you brought up. So just make your point instead of playing games.

Do YOU understand the principle of marginal change?

"I wondered why how much doubling it cause matters....."

And you can't figure out why people don't understand what you're trying to say????

How about a translation?

 

[misterman]

"I wondered why how much doubling it cause matters....."

And you can't figure out why people don't understand what you're trying to say????

How about a translation?

You really don't understand?

Let me try again.

If the earth is at a certain mean temperature, say, 50 degrees, at a certain level of CO2, adding just a little bit more CO2 could raise the temperature just a few more degrees. It doesn't matter that there was already alot of CO2. It's the small increase that matters.

Got it?

I didn't bring up the "doubling" issue.

 

[Gill]

You really don't understand?

Let me try again.

If the earth is at a certain mean temperature, say, 50 degrees, at a certain level of CO2, adding just a little bit more CO2 could raise the temperature just a few more degrees. It doesn't matter that there was already alot of CO2. It's the small increase that matters.

Got it?

I didn't bring up the "doubling" issue.

No, it's you that doesn't understand. A "little bit" more CO2 has negligible affect on the temperature. That's why I asked if you knew what affect doubling has, which you obviously don't.

It takes a LOT of CO2 to affect the temperature. If the addition of 100 ppm from 275 ppm up to 375 ppm has raised the temperature 0.75 degrees C, then CO2 would have to reach 750 ppm to raise it another 0.75 degrees C, then 1500 ppm to raise it another 0.75 degrees. The affect of CO2 on temperature is logarithmic. It has to double each time to have the same affect.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The problem with your theory is that during the last dozen ice ages, over 3/4 million years, with wide global swings in temperature, CO2 levels never rose above 275ppm. Now we are 25% higher than that, and rising.

 

[misterman]

No, it's you that doesn't understand. A "little bit" more CO2 has negligible affect on the temperature.

Okay, finally, we're back on topic.

Please back up this statement. In the meantime, do we agree that the "little bit" is irrelevant to how much was there in the first place? In other words, what matters is the absolute number, not the relative number? That's the objection I was responding to.

 

[Gill]

The problem with your theory is that during the last dozen ice ages, over 3/4 million years, with wide global swings in temperature, CO2 levels never rose above 275ppm. Now we are 25% higher than that, and rising.

The "last" ice age is still going, and it began over 2 1/2 million years ago, so your statement regarding 3/4 million years means little. There certainly hasn't been a "dozen" ice ages in the last 3/4 million years. We are currently in an interglacial period, which means the last ice age is fading, resulting in melt of the ice and glaciers it left behind. Sound familiar?? Emerging from ice ages typically means temperatures are rising and ice melts.

There wasn't wide global swings in temperature during ice ages. And yes, CO2 has been much higher in Earth's history.

 

[Gill]

Okay, finally, we're back on topic.

Please back up this statement. In the meantime, do we agree that the "little bit" is irrelevant to how much was there in the first place? In other words, what matters is the absolute number, not the relative number? That's the objection I was responding to.

Are you serious?? This is Climate 101.

 

[misterman]

Are you serious?? This is Climate 101.

So?

Tell us how much additional CO2 is required to cause one degree of increase in temperature, if it's linear. If it's 101, it should be easy to back it up.

 

[rebelbuc]

No one has proven that it's even close to linear. Some logical and open-minded scientists have done research that indicates that the ability of CO2 to elevate the greenhouse effect is severely limited... of course, the IPCC would never include their research since not peer reviewed by IPCC insiders.

 

[rebelbuc]

So?

Tell us how much additional CO2 is required to cause one degree of increase in temperature, if it's linear. If it's 101, it should be easy to back it up.

Have you every read the explanations (available from many thinking scientists) that show how water vapor dwarfs CO2's ability to cause any greenhouse effect... and, besides that, CO2's contribution is small by any standard and one volcano eruption dwarfs all of industrialized society's contribution!