• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More alarmism

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
31,646
Reaction score
10,360
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/climate-policies-put-world-track-103000437.html
Yet when we look at the report,
https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/
the projection is based IPCC RPC Baseline scenarios.
3.3°C 1 warming above pre-industrial levels.
I guess we need to first find the pre-industrial temperature, to see what the 3.3°C is referenced to.
In the GISS the average between 1880 and 1900 is -.22, which used to mean 13.78 °C, but is questionable now.
Whatever the case if -.22 is used as the pre-industrial baseline, then 3.3°C would be 3.08 on the GISS scale.
3.08 °C would be roughly 2.36 °C above the current decade average.
To increase that 2.36 °C, in the next 81 years, would require a sustained warming of .29 °C per decade.
The real problem with predictions like this is that we do not have ANY sustained periods of that level of warming
in the roughly 150 years of the instrument record.
The decade average highest decade growth was .238 per decade in 1945.
It looks like only 2 years in the last 70 had decade growth above 2.0 C per decade.
Now we are expected to believe we are going to have 8 sustained decades,
where the warming exceeds anything observed in the record by .05 C per decade.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
People aren't buying the alarmism.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[h=1]Washington State Voters Reject Carbon Dioxide Tax, Again December 7, 2018[/h][FONT=&quot]From The Heartland Institute. By Joe Barnett Tax would have funded ‘clean energy’ projects For the second time in two years, Washington State voters rejected a proposal to tax carbon dioxide emissions. Fifty-six percent of those voting in Washington’s midterm elections said no to a referendum that would have made the state the first in…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Is it a silly question but given that the rise in CO2 as a proportion of the total CO2 in the air has probably seen the max already, given the low start and current comparitive high figure, surely the max rate of temperature growth has already happened?
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
31,646
Reaction score
10,360
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Is it a silly question but given that the rise in CO2 as a proportion of the total CO2 in the air has probably seen the max already, given the low start and current comparitive high figure, surely the max rate of temperature growth has already happened?
We are already passed 50% pf the possible forcing from the first CO2 doubling.
This can be easily demonstrated with the energy imbalance equation the IPCC uses.
since 5.35 X ln(2)=~3.71 Wm-2, then 5.35 X ln(408/280)= 2.014 Wm-2,
while 5.35 X ln(560/408)= 1.69 Wm-2.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We are already passed 50% pf the possible forcing from the first CO2 doubling.
This can be easily demonstrated with the energy imbalance equation the IPCC uses.
since 5.35 X ln(2)=~3.71 Wm-2, then 5.35 X ln(408/280)= 2.014 Wm-2,
while 5.35 X ln(560/408)= 1.69 Wm-2.

OK,for the less maths-ey types could you do a graph of that?
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
31,646
Reaction score
10,360
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yeah, we need a forcing vs year graph really so you can see when the gradient was steepest.

Note; this is beyond my can-be-arsed vs ability.

that is a good idea, let me see what I can do.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
80,857
Reaction score
36,219
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
People aren't buying the alarmism.

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/11/washington-state-voters-reject-carbon-dioxide-tax-again-december-7-2018/"]
architecture-buildings-city-37350-337x260.jpg
[/URL][/FONT]

[h=1]Washington State Voters Reject Carbon Dioxide Tax, Again December 7, 2018[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]From The Heartland Institute. By Joe Barnett Tax would have funded ‘clean energy’ projects For the second time in two years, Washington State voters rejected a proposal to tax carbon dioxide emissions. Fifty-six percent of those voting in Washington’s midterm elections said no to a referendum that would have made the state the first in…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/11/washington-state-voters-reject-carbon-dioxide-tax-again-december-7-2018/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]

People vote against a tax, therefore climate change isn't a problem!
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
31,646
Reaction score
10,360
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yeah, we need a forcing vs year graph really so you can see when the gradient was steepest.

Note; this is beyond my can-be-arsed vs ability.

I used the existing growth curve of .11 ppm per year, plus the average growth over the last decade.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
It seems the growth flattens out the curve, but still shows that there is only 1.6 Wm-2 or so left for the first doubling,
compared, to the slightly over 2 Wm-2 that have already occurred.
possible CO2_growth.png
 

Attachments

  • possible CO2_growth.png
    possible CO2_growth.png
    7.5 KB · Views: 57

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Lying to advance their alarmist cause.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[h=1]World’s nations increase CO2 emissions in defiance of climate alarmist driven “Paris agreement” schemes[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Larry Hamlin The L. A. Times published a story regarding estimates by the Global Carbon Project showing that CO2 emissions would reach record levels in 2018 based on increased fossil fuel use by the world’s nations in defiance of climate alarmist contrived “Paris climate agreement” schemes. The Times story noted that: “The…
[/FONT]
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
80,857
Reaction score
36,219
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nothing to be alarmed about.

Word it however you like. People voting against a tax is not scientific evidence of... well, anything.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I used the existing growth curve of .11 ppm per year, plus the average growth over the last decade.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
It seems the growth flattens out the curve, but still shows that there is only 1.6 Wm-2 or so left for the first doubling,
compared, to the slightly over 2 Wm-2 that have already occurred.
View attachment 67245850

Isn't the rate of increase of CO2 around 2ppm/yr?

And why is it a straight line? Suely if you have a constant increase in CO2 the warming would be decreasing?
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,484
Reaction score
2,524
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Nice graph, does not really show what I was after in terms of the way the warming should follow the input of constant (ish) increase in CO2 vs warming increase (reducing per increase).

I know it doesn't show what you want. A wise person would have taken that as an opportunity to revise their expectations and beliefs. Starting with this absurd notion that the CO2 increase has been constant... ish :roll: Both population and economic activity have been increasing exponentially. What kind of fantasy world are you living in?
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I know it doesn't show what you want. A wise person would have taken that as an opportunity to revise their expectations and beliefs. Starting with this absurd notion that the CO2 increase has been constant... ish :roll: Both population and economic activity have been increasing exponentially. What kind of fantasy world are you living in?

The graphs showing CO2 levels show about a 2ppm/yr increase.

The rate of human output have indeed increased but then the rate of uptake of CO2 that the natural world has is a function of the amount in the air.

Thus the rate of increase appears to be constant-ish. Despite your want for a scary line flying off upwards.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...sues/327832-atmospheric-co2-tops-408-ppm.html
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
31,646
Reaction score
10,360
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Isn't the rate of increase of CO2 around 2ppm/yr?

And why is it a straight line? Suely if you have a constant increase in CO2 the warming would be decreasing?
The number I used was I took the average growth from the last decade, and then added ESRL's .11 ppm per year on top of that.
I think the reason the line looks straight, is the predicted growth keeps up with the loss of efficiency of CO2's response.
In any case it looks like the higher RCP's would be too high, so RPC8.5 would require a much higher growth rate.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The number I used was I took the average growth from the last decade, and then added ESRL's .11 ppm per year on top of that.
I think the reason the line looks straight, is the predicted growth keeps up with the loss of efficiency of CO2's response.
In any case it looks like the higher RCP's would be too high, so RPC8.5 would require a much higher growth rate.

Oh, so the 0.11ppm/yr/yr is an acceleration.

Assuming that is the case, how long before the slope reaches, or has reached, the max?
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
31,646
Reaction score
10,360
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oh, so the 0.11ppm/yr/yr is an acceleration.

Assuming that is the case, how long before the slope reaches, or has reached, the max?
If we were to look at the past growth like how a stock moves up and down, it looks like we hit resistance
around 3 ppm per year, it could go higher, but not without expanding our refining capability.
ESRL simply post what it is, not if it can continue.
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,484
Reaction score
2,524
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The graphs showing CO2 levels show about a 2ppm/yr increase.

The rate of human output have indeed increased but then the rate of uptake of CO2 that the natural world has is a function of the amount in the air.

Thus the rate of increase appears to be constant-ish. Despite your want for a scary line flying off upwards.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...sues/327832-atmospheric-co2-tops-408-ppm.html

Sure, that would be why the concentrations averaged a 0.83ppm per year increase in the 1960s, 1.9ppm per year in the 2000s and 2.36ppm per year in the 2010s :roll:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html

Pro tip; if one of the world's biggest and most thorough scientific collaboration reports says one thing, and you've glanced at a graph to 'confirm' your wishful thinking to the contrary, you're probably still the one who is wrong. As usual.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Sure, that would be why the concentrations averaged a 0.83ppm per year increase in the 1960s, 1.9ppm per year in the 2000s and 2.36ppm per year in the 2010s :roll:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html

Pro tip; if one of the world's biggest and most thorough scientific collaboration reports says one thing, and you've glanced at a graph to 'confirm' your wishful thinking to the contrary, you're probably still the one who is wrong. As usual.

https://www.co2.earth/

Looks a fairly straight line to me.
 
Top Bottom