• 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!

Between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
63,232
Reaction score
28,538
Location
The city Fox News viewers are afraid to travel to
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Thought this was interesting - I didnt realize this was confirmed in the US FNCSA.

From the US Fourth National Climate Assessment:

Chapter 3:

1. The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 93%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. It is extremely likely that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 was caused by human influence on climate (high confidence). The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence).

2. The science of event attribution is rapidly advancing through improved understanding of the mechnisms that produce extreme events and the marked progress in development of methods that are used for event attribution (high confidence).

Also, Carbon Brief has a nice video on attribution to temp.



Of course, this is all compiled by the top scientists in the field, so if you are an autodidact in an armchair with no actual working knowledge of this information, or just a libertarian partisan nut who gets his science from Fox News, YMMV.
 
So from 1950 with a CO2 level of about 300ppm to now with CO2 of 400ppm we have had 0.8c rise in global temperaure.

So that's 0.8c per 1/3 rise in CO2.

The next third will take 44 years or so at the current rate of 3 ppm per year so that will be 0.8c above now by 2060.

The third after that will be 60 years further down the line, 2120, or so.

According to these figures and this hypothesis.

Anybody worried about that?
 
So from 1950 with a CO2 level of about 300ppm to now with CO2 of 400ppm we have had 0.8c rise in global temperaure.

So that's 0.8c per 1/3 rise in CO2.

The next third will take 44 years or so at the current rate of 3 ppm per year so that will be 0.8c above now by 2060.

The third after that will be 60 years further down the line, 2120, or so.

According to these figures and this hypothesis.

Anybody worried about that?

The authors of the Climate Assessment seem to be.

Maybe you should read it.

Or then again, you can ask the autodidacts here for their 'expert' opinions and go with that. Then you wont tax your brain or anything.
 
So from 1950 with a CO2 level of about 300ppm to now with CO2 of 400ppm we have had 0.8c rise in global temperaure.

So that's 0.8c per 1/3 rise in CO2.

The next third will take 44 years or so at the current rate of 3 ppm per year so that will be 0.8c above now by 2060.

The third after that will be 60 years further down the line, 2120, or so.

According to these figures and this hypothesis.

Anybody worried about that?

Three questions-

1- Why do you think the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will remain steady while population increases?
2- Why do you think a increase of 134 ppm will have the same effect on temperature as an increase of 100 ppm did?
3- What do you think the effect of a 3 degree C increase will be in terms of thermal expansion on a mass the size of the Pacific ocean?
 
Three questions-

1- Why do you think the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will remain steady while population increases?
2- Why do you think a increase of 134 ppm will have the same effect on temperature as an increase of 100 ppm did?
3- What do you think the effect of a 3 degree C increase will be in terms of thermal expansion on a mass the size of the Pacific ocean?

I think I can answer #2 quite easily, CO2's response is a doubling curve.
So if the expected warming from doubling the CO2 level is
say 1.2 C, then 1.73 X ln(CO2_hi/CO2_low) would tell you how much warming would occur.
1.73 X ln(400/300)= .497 C
1.73 X ln(534/400)= .499 C
 
Thought this was interesting - I didnt realize this was confirmed in the US FNCSA.

From the US Fourth National Climate Assessment:



Also, Carbon Brief has a nice video on attribution to temp.



Of course, this is all compiled by the top scientists in the field, so if you are an autodidact in an armchair with no actual working knowledge of this information, or just a libertarian partisan nut who gets his science from Fox News, YMMV.


https://www.carbonbrief.org/about-us

Four scientists. Two with Masters and one with just a four year degree and only one with a PhD...

Great expert team... :roll:
 
Three questions-

1- Why do you think the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will remain steady while population increases?
2- Why do you think a increase of 134 ppm will have the same effect on temperature as an increase of 100 ppm did?
3- What do you think the effect of a 3 degree C increase will be in terms of thermal expansion on a mass the size of the Pacific ocean?

....and for that matter, when you've got the numbers, what will be the life style impact on Joe Shmoe?
 
I agree with the observation that 93% to 123% is more than half. I also agree with the observation that the world population has more than doubled between 1951 and 2010.
 
Three questions-

1- Why do you think the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will remain steady while population increases?
2- Why do you think a increase of 134 ppm will have the same effect on temperature as an increase of 100 ppm did?
3- What do you think the effect of a 3 degree C increase will be in terms of thermal expansion on a mass the size of the Pacific ocean?

1, I expect that as the CO2 level increases the absoption rate will increase. That would point to a reducing rate of increase. The rate of CO2 production may increase faster or slower than this who knows?

2, Because the effect of increased CO2 is said to be in proportion to the fractoion of increase.

3, The above only gets to a 1.6c increase. The pacific ocean will not change temperature to any depth much beyond 200m as the temperature of the oceans is driven by the density of water and the weird way that works.
 
Thought this was interesting - I didnt realize this was confirmed in the US FNCSA.

From the US Fourth National Climate Assessment:



Also, Carbon Brief has a nice video on attribution to temp.



Of course, this is all compiled by the top scientists in the field, so if you are an autodidact in an armchair with no actual working knowledge of this information, or just a libertarian partisan nut who gets his science from Fox News, YMMV.



"La la la la la la la" all the way home with fingers stuffed in ears is the approved corporate state patriot response.
 
Three questions-

1- Why do you think the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will remain steady while population increases?
2- Why do you think a increase of 134 ppm will have the same effect on temperature as an increase of 100 ppm did?
3- What do you think the effect of a 3 degree C increase will be in terms of thermal expansion on a mass the size of the Pacific ocean?

Good questions. But I would be more interested in the cost benefit analysis and socioeconomic impact studies of preventing how much warming.
 
"La la la la la la la" all the way home with fingers stuffed in ears is the approved corporate state patriot response.

I find lots of folk think like you. The problem is, however, quite a bit more involved.

Take the German government that has been arguably the one most actively pursuing a climate change ideology. In the 1990s they implemented a cap and trade certificate system. This is certainly the most efficient way of reducing emissions. Instead of using it the way it had been intended, the government supplied industry with so many certificates that the prices for energy were pushed downwards creating major disequilibrium. The reason was that the government was afraid that the population would become restive and punish anyone they felt had reduced the standard of living as much as the necessary cuts in emissions would require. In addition the competitiveness would be massively impacted.

At present technology we are phasing into a situation of alternative energy sources becoming competitive. As this progresses, we will have less and less trade off to face. But even now the French minister in charge said that the traverse will require thousands of billions of dollars.
 
Too bad you alarmists forget the solar changes with its lag and thermal inertial.

But then alarmists believe propaganda over science.
 
I followed some papers dealing with solar the 477 page reports lists. Funny how so many have Gavin Schmidt's name on them, and he only includes the direct forcing. No thermal inertia or feedback to solar. And where one of the papers talk about the pause, it then refers to lower solar activity of recent years.

Lots of cherry picking here...
 
[h=3]Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming ...[/h]https://www.hindawi.com/archive/2017/9251034/



by H Harde - ‎2017 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles
Nov 1, 2016 - To deduce the lw absorptivity at cloudiness from the radiation transfer calculations, the absorbed intensity listed in column 6 of Table 3, which now reflects the total absorption caused by the GH gases and the clouds, has to be reduced by the cloud fraction.
[h=4]Abstract[/h]
We present detailed line-by-line radiation transfer calculations, which were performed under different atmospheric conditions for the most important greenhouse gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. Particularly cloud effects, surface temperature variations, and humidity changes as well as molecular lineshape effects are investigated to examine their specific influence on some basic climatologic parameters like the radiative forcing, the long wave absorptivity, and back-radiation as a function of an increasing CO2concentration in the atmosphere. These calculations are used to assess the CO2 global warming by means of an advanced two-layer climate model and to disclose some larger discrepancies in calculating the climate sensitivity. Including solar and cloud effects as well as all relevant feedback processes our simulations give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of

= 0.7°C (temperature increase at doubled CO2) and a solar sensitivity of

= 0.17°C (at 0.1% increase of the total solar irradiance). Then CO2 contributes 40% and the Sun 60% to global warming over the last century.

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
 

[h=1]Study: finds a solar amplification mechanism by which solar activity & cosmic rays control climate[/h]The HockeySchtick writes: A paper published today in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds another potential solar amplification mechanism mediated by galactic cosmic rays [GCRs] (and distinct from Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory of climate). The author demonstrates: Solar modulation of GCR [Galactic Cosmic Rays] is translated down to the Earth climate. The mediator of solar influence…

4 days ago December 11, 2017 in Cosmic rays, Solar.
 

[h=1]Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth’s Climate[/h]Guest essay by Mike Jonas “And what might they be?” – Dr. Leif Svalgaard For a long time, I have been bitterly disappointed at the blinkered lopsided attitude of the IPCC and of many climate scientists, by which they readily accepted spurious indirect effects from CO2-driven global warming (the “feedbacks”), yet found a range of…

June 10, 2017 in Solar.
 
Back
Top Bottom