Interesting read re. Global warming

[groggy]

I was wrong it didnt triple. I then corrected myself and showed the graph where we went from 5 million metric tons of CO2 to 9 million metric tons. This was over a period of about 16 years.

So thats almost double, not triple the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Thats still a HUGE a mount of CO2 over a very short period of time into our atmosphere.

My point still stands. Why was there no temperature increase over that same period??

Still screwing up the basics, Phil.
I'm going to have to look up some high school science courses for you to take.

Take a look at your chart, the final dot in it is nowhere near 9 million metric tonnes.
You are wrong again at even the most basic attempts to understand your own points.

Which makes your question one based on a false premise and unworthy of answering.
Shame.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Still screwing up the basics, Phil.
I'm going to have to look up some high school science courses for you to take.

Take a look at your chart, the final dot in it is nowhere near 9 million metric tonnes.
You are wrong again at even the most basic attempts to understand your own points.

Which makes your question one based on a false premise and unworthy of answering.
Shame

What does the CO2 output for the year 2010 say, groggy??

 

[blackrock13]

So just to make sure rockie, are you saying global warming is real and poses an immediate serious threat to planet earth??

If you need to ask, you haven't been paying attention.

It also depends on 'your' definition of immediate and then maybe not, as the sooner we get involved in countermeasures, the better, whether we are at that point of no return. It certainly won't hurt. I've seen marine environments off the coast of NZ, complete devoid of fish and a great deal of marine vegetation, totally rebound in 7-9 years when given a hand.

I'm not worried about 'planet earth' surviving, it will for a long long time. Human life as we know it and it's flora and fauna important to human life, not too sure. As for the human in 2525, only Zager & Evans has the answer to that one.

 

[blackrock13]

What does the CO2 output for the year 2010 say, groggy??

Sure would like the source for this graph. The reason i ask is that the total population that I'm aware of for the year 1940 is around 2.2 million, but the graph doesn't show that, but rather 2.5 million, nearly a 15% difference. Then we also have to look at the two y axis. They are using unique scales. The graphs been tweaked to meet the desired result

 

[Moviefan-2]

As for the human race in 2525, only Zager & Evans has the answer to that one.

No wonder you're so keen to get back to the garden. Oh, wait a minute, that was CSNY. :hippie:

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Sure would like the source for this graph

It came from this site somewhere, but I cant find the exact link:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

Here's another graph from a different site, but it only goes up to 2005 (its estimate is approximately the same though, around 9,000 by the year 2010):

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/wp-content/Pop-vs-emissions.pdf

 

[blackrock13]

It came from this site somewhere, but I cant find the exact link:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

Here's another graph from a different site, but it only goes up to 2005 (its estimate is approximately the same though, around 9,000 by the year 2010):

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/wp-content/Pop-vs-emissions.pdf

Same tweaking, but not as blatant.

 

[groggy]

What does the CO2 output for the year 2010 say, groggy??

I misread the data for your chart, I screwed up.
I'm not sure where that chart or those numbers are from, I'd prefer to use the IAEA numbers:

Those numbers show CO2 up around 30% or so in the last 12 years.
Which is very, very far away from increasing:

we have tripled CO2 output the last 16 years or so

Which means that your question itself was still wrong.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I misread the data for your chart, I screwed up

Ahaha.....in your haste to call me stupid again you screwed up

Which means that your question itself was still wrong

China tripled its CO2 output, the rest of the world did not. That is true.

But keep in mind, these graphs are estimates. Nobody knows for sure exactly how much CO2 we are putting out every year. Whether in last 16 years it has increased 30%, 50% or 90%, nobody knows.

My point still stands, we have pumped out a huge amount of CO2 the last 16 years compared to previous decades. And while I dont claim to understand the exact science behind global warming, I still think we should have some some type of temperature increase over that same period.

I will concede however that last winter was very mild. And this summer was hotter then usual. So if 2013 is warmer then usual, and 2014 is also, then that would be 3 years in a row and perhaps thats the start of something

 

[groggy]

China tripled its CO2 output, the rest of the world did not. That is true.

But keep in mind, these graphs are estimates. Nobody knows for sure exactly how much CO2 we are putting out every year. Whether in last 16 years it has increased 30%, 50% or 90%, nobody knows.

My point still stands, we have pumped out a huge amount of CO2 the last 16 years compared to previous decades. And while I dont claim to understand the exact science behind global warming, I still think we should have some some type of temperature increase over that same period.

I will concede however that last winter was very mild. And this summer was hotter then usual. So if 2013 is warmer then usual, and 2014 is also, then that would be 3 years in a row and perhaps thats the start of something

Your point doesn't stand.
The increases have been exponential, but nowhere near what you argued they were.
As for your argument that temperature hasn't increased, that is typical cherry picking of data.

The best way to show that is to look at this gif.
It shows the general increasing trend, then flips over to show how if you cherry pick the dates (like your 16 year reference, shown with the blue lines) you can come up with figures where it looks like it hasn't been increasing, even though its obviously wrong in the long term (shown with the red lines).

So your question was wrong, CO2 hasn't tripled in the last 16 years and your claim was wrong, temperature is increasing.
Got it?

 

[blackrock13]

Ahaha.....in your haste to call me stupid again you screwed up


China tripled its CO2 output, the rest of the world did not. That is true.

But keep in mind, these graphs are estimates. Nobody knows for sure exactly how much CO2 we are putting out every year. Whether in last 16 years it has increased 30%, 50% or 90%, nobody knows.

My point still stands, we have pumped out a huge amount of CO2 the last 16 years compared to previous decades. And while I dont claim to understand the exact science behind global warming, I still think we should have some some type of temperature increase over that same period.

I will concede however that last winter was very mild. And this summer was hotter then usual. So if 2013 is warmer then usual, and 2014 is also, then that would be 3 years in a row and perhaps thats the start of something

Yes, they're estimates, but they have methodology to measure the amount. You're just not familiar with how and neither am I at this time, but I suspect the measurement is a function of changes in concentrations, easily measured by monitoring stations all over the place and infrared radar from space, relative to timelines; day/night, weekend/weekdays, weeks, months, seasons, years, and decades. They can also record these changes in history based on measurement in deposits in the earths crusts, living plant and animals, reading through measuring such things as isotope ratios. Even pattern brought on by power failures, general strike and natural catastrophes like recently in Japan, can be recorded and counted for in the deviations of readings. Do you think the CO2 reading remained level over Japan in the weeks following the tsunami?

Do you really think they just guess?

You still want to cling tom that 16 year timeline, which for reasons already explained is cherry picked and flawed.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

temperature is increasing. Got it?

Except its not increasing. Got it? :biggrin1:

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Do you really think they just guess?

When there's $$billions of dollars at stake, yeah I wouldnt be surprised if they just guessed

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/12/11/eu-carbon-credit-trading-fraud.html

 

[blackrock13]

When there's $$billions of dollars at stake, yeah I wouldnt be surprised if they just guessed

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/12/11/eu-carbon-credit-trading-fraud.html

So they (all) lie?

If that's the case, why can't the same be said of the skeptics who want make headlines to sell tickets to their speeches and sell their books? It's not billions, although it could be millions on a global scale, but it's sure important money to each of them on a personal level. You could even argue they're doing it for money as well.

This graph would beg to differ, starting from the point where the industrial revolution was in full swing and the population started to sky rocket, a 150 year timeline not 16 years.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Global_warming

Note how it goes up and down at different frequencies and amplitudes, but the trend is basically up. your the one that says CO and temperature go up and down together so the trend for CO@ must be up as well.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

So they all lie

Why not, rockie?? Look at pro sports, everyone is either doping or doing steroids. Once in a while somebody gets caught, but for the most part everyone keeps their mouths shut and they let the gravy train continue

 

[nuprin001]

Everybody is right. Everybody is wrong.

Do humans have an effect on global temperatures? Sure. How much? Maybe a little, maybe a lot, but we should be careful nonetheless. But we also need to balance that against hurting the global economy on the basis of alarmism.

Read Superfreakonomics. There is a relatively simple, cheap "solution" to global warming that would cost less than $1 billion (you have to really work to get it into the hundreds of millions, but a government agency could get it up to a billion with no sweat), have a relatively small impact on the environment (maybe a 10% increase in worldwide acid rain), and would be adjustable virtually on a dial. But nobody is interested, because there's so little money to be made off of it.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

nobody is interested, because there's so little money to be made off of it

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[blackrock13]

Everybody is right. Everybody is wrong.

Do humans have an effect on global temperatures? Sure. How much? Maybe a little, maybe a lot, but we should be careful nonetheless. But we also need to balance that against hurting the global economy on the basis of alarmism.

Read Superfreakonomics. There is a relatively simple, cheap "solution" to global warming that would cost less than $1 billion (you have to really work to get it into the hundreds of millions, but a government agency could get it up to a billion with no sweat), have a relatively small impact on the environment (maybe a 10% increase in worldwide acid rain), and would be adjustable virtually on a dial. But nobody is interested, because there's so little money to be made off of it.

So save us some time and money and tell us what that solution is.

 

[blackrock13]

Why not, rockie?? Look at pro sports, everyone is either doping or doing steroids. Once in a while somebody gets caught, but for the most part everyone keeps their mouths shut and they let the gravy train continue

So even the skeptics lie? I mean they make money on their message.

 

[groggy]

Why not, rockie?? Look at pro sports, everyone is either doping or doing steroids. Once in a while somebody gets caught, but for the most part everyone keeps their mouths shut and they let the gravy train continue

Here's the difference.
Skeptics are paid by the fossil fuel industry to promote views, not science.
Scientists are paid by the government to supply provable work.

And if you check the money behind each, you'll find that the fossil fuel crowd is pretty well paid.

But back to the original point.
you were caught out with a false premise and false assumption and instead of admitting you were wrong have instead just tried to change the subject.