• 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!

[W:1458] Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Media_Truth said:
No, what most scientists agreed upon was that Atmospheric CO2 is a "significant" contributor to AGW, and the problems, present and especially future, caused by AGW.
Click to expand...
First off scientific "significance" can be as low as 5%, but if you read the surveys, the numbers
do not reflect the catastrophic portion of the IPCC predictions.
Consider the the IPCC could be correct and ECS could be 1.8 C for 2XCO2,
If we are never able to get to 560 ppm of CO2 then the temperature would be even lower.
 
Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

longview said:
First off scientific "significance" can be as low as 5%, but if you read the surveys, the numbers
do not reflect the catastrophic portion of the IPCC predictions.
Consider the the IPCC could be correct and ECS could be 1.8 C for 2XCO2,
If we are never able to get to 560 ppm of CO2 then the temperature would be even lower.
Click to expand...

Oh, look.

Another person who doesn’t understand the incredibly basic concept of statistical significance.

Yet somehow knows more than all the scientists in the field put together.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Threegoofs said:
Oh, look.

Another person who doesn’t understand the incredibly basic concept of statistical significance.

Yet somehow knows more than all the scientists in the field put together.
Click to expand...
Oh, look! another person who lacks sufficient reading comprehension to participate in a conversation.
Wiki, did a fair job of documenting the consensus surveys,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change
The actual surveys and not subjectively judging opinions from publications, were limited.
Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011
When asked what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know.[22]
Click to expand...
Wow, 57% think the effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years will trivial to moderate,
with only 41% saying severe to catastrophic.
STATS, 2007
Only 5% believe that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; 41% say they thought the effects of global warming would be near catastrophic over the next 50–100 years; 44% say said effects would be moderately dangerous; 13% saw relatively little danger; 56% say global climate change is a mature science; 39% say it is an emerging science.
Click to expand...

The question is not really if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but what is the overall sensitivity to added CO2.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

longview said:
Oh, look! another person who lacks sufficient reading comprehension to participate in a conversation.
Wiki, did a fair job of documenting the consensus surveys,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change
The actual surveys and not subjectively judging opinions from publications, were limited.
Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011

Wow, 57% think the effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years will trivial to moderate,
with only 41% saying severe to catastrophic.
STATS, 2007


The question is not really if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but what is the overall sensitivity to added CO2.
Click to expand...

Well, that has nothing to do with your non-understanding of a basic scientific concept.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

longview said:
First off scientific "significance" can be as low as 5%, but if you read the surveys, the numbers
do not reflect the catastrophic portion of the IPCC predictions.
Consider the the IPCC could be correct and ECS could be 1.8 C for 2XCO2,
If we are never able to get to 560 ppm of CO2 then the temperature would be even lower.
Click to expand...

I don't think we will ever get to 560 ppm.

At 400 ppm, we are 120 ppm over what the earth will slowly equalize to. At 520 ppm, we will have double what the natural system wants for equilibrium, so the velocity of equalization would be double what it is now. 560 ppm.... I wonder what our annual carbon output would have to be to ever achieve that?
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Threegoofs said:
Well, that has nothing to do with your non-understanding of a basic scientific concept.
Click to expand...

What scientific concept would that be?
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Threegoofs said:
Oh, look.

Another person who doesn’t understand the incredibly basic concept of statistical significance.

Yet somehow knows more than all the scientists in the field put together.
Click to expand...

The question wasn't pertaining to statistical significance. This is what I speak of when I say papers equivocate. If they wanted any accuracy, they would have used different wording. This shows just how dishonest these people are to get published.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Lord of Planar said:
I don't think we will ever get to 560 ppm.

At 400 ppm, we are 120 ppm over what the earth will slowly equalize to. At 520 ppm, we will have double what the natural system wants for equilibrium, so the velocity of equalization would be double what it is now. 560 ppm.... I wonder what our annual carbon output would have to be to ever achieve that?
Click to expand...
The often quoted statement the each gallon of gasoline make 20 lbs of CO2, is a reversible process,
Each pound of new bio matter takes 3 lbs of CO2 to create, so all that greening is taking a lot of CO2.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

longview said:
What scientific concept would that be?
Click to expand...

longview said:
First off scientific "significance" can be as low as 5%, but if you read the surveys, the numbers
do not reflect the catastrophic portion of the IPCC predictions.
Click to expand...

You think significance is a 5% effect. You're completely confusing the concept of statistical significance and general significance. Embarrassingly so, for a person who actually understands science. You, on the other hand, probably dont get the difference.

You and LoP have similar scientific training. That is, negligible.

But... you know more than the National Academy of Sciences!
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Threegoofs said:
You think significance is a 5% effect. You're completely confusing the concept of statistical significance and general significance. Embarrassingly so, for a person who actually understands science. You, on the other hand, probably dont get the difference.

You and LoP have similar scientific training. That is, negligible.

But... you know more than the National Academy of Sciences!
Click to expand...

Your statement does not spell out which basic scientific concept you think I do not understand.
Please be specific.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Threegoofs said:
You think significance is a 5% effect. You're completely confusing the concept of statistical significance and general significance. Embarrassingly so, for a person who actually understands science. You, on the other hand, probably dont get the difference.

You and LoP have similar scientific training. That is, negligible.

But... you know more than the National Academy of Sciences!
Click to expand...

*IF* scientists answered that yes/no question, using the technical meaning of significant, a scientist thinking AGW was only 15% of the warming, would have answered "YES." 15% is not "most." It is less than 1/6th.

We don't know to what percentage these scientists think AGW plays in the warming. But to say "significant" means "most" is absolutely stupid!

Using the 5% means that is a believing AGW was only responsible for 5% of the warning, would also answer yes. The word "significant" guarantees a near 100% number, whereas if the question said "most," they may probably would have had an answer between 25% and 75%.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Threegoofs said:
And you can’t even understand...
Click to expand...
Describe a 95% confidence interval. Would a 5% be part of that confidence level?
It really does not matter, as that is statistics, The science of AGW is related to things
like 2XCO2 forcing factors and ECS, how those levels are determined.
What is important is that there is minimal empirical data supporting the idea of greenhouse gas forcing,
and even less data that supports the predicted amplified feedbacks.
If you think additional data exists please cite it.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

longview said:
Describe a 95% confidence interval. Would a 5% be part of that confidence level?
Click to expand...

Oh, man,

Basic, basic basic.

And you have no clue.

But please, tell us how the IPCC got the science wrong.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Threegoofs said:
Oh, man,

Basic, basic basic.

And you have no clue.

But please, tell us how the IPCC got the science wrong.
Click to expand...
You seem to think the IPCC made a definitive statement, what the IPCC said was
the likely ECS from 2XCO2 would be between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
Somehow, I do not think a range twice as large as the minimum number is what most would call definitive.
I am guessing by your lack of an answer, that you do not have any sources to cite
showing empirical data for predicted amplified feedbacks.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

longview said:
You seem to think the IPCC made a definitive statement, what the IPCC said was
the likely ECS from 2XCO2 would be between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
Somehow, I do not think a range twice as large as the minimum number is what most would call definitive.
I am guessing by your lack of an answer, that you do not have any sources to cite
showing empirical data for predicted amplified feedbacks.
Click to expand...

You still dont get it, but you do love to perseverate over ECS.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Threegoofs said:
You still dont get it, but you do love to perseverate over ECS.
Click to expand...
Actually it is you who do not get that there are valid grounds for skepticism about the more catastrophic
portions of the IPCC predictions.
That we can only detect, but not quantify, the most basic and certain portion of the concept should be enough
on it's own, but the lack of any measurable evidence that could show amplified feedbacks is even worse.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

longview said:
Actually it is you who do not get that there are valid grounds for skepticism about the more catastrophic
portions of the IPCC predictions.
That we can only detect, but not quantify, the most basic and certain portion of the concept should be enough
on it's own, but the lack of any measurable evidence that could show amplified feedbacks is even worse.
Click to expand...

says the guy who doesnt understand significance in science.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Threegoofs said:
says the guy who doesnt understand significance in science.
Click to expand...
No, This is stated in peer reviewed publications. (that we have so far only detected what might be forcing from added CO2.)
Feldman et al 2015. Feldman suggested that the downwelling longwave radiation would be proportional
to the predicted imbalance, but could not quantify what that proportion would be.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

longview said:
First off scientific "significance" can be as low as 5%, but if you read the surveys, the numbers
do not reflect the catastrophic portion of the IPCC predictions.
Consider the the IPCC could be correct and ECS could be 1.8 C for 2XCO2,
If we are never able to get to 560 ppm of CO2 then the temperature would be even lower.
Click to expand...

You are willing to gamble the lives (and quality of life) of your children and grandchildren. I'm not. 1.8 deg C is 3.24 deg F. We've already seen what 2 deg F does with wildfires in the US West. We've seen a lot of other effects of the current temperature rise. 3.24 deg F could be very catastrophic for future generations. And those are conservative numbers. We are seeing that, so far, the IPCC models have been too conservative.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Media_Truth said:
You are willing to gamble the lives (and quality of life) of your children and grandchildren. I'm not. 1.8 deg C is 3.24 deg F. We've already seen what 2 deg F does with wildfires in the US West. We've seen a lot of other effects of the current temperature rise. 3.24 deg F could be very catastrophic for future generations. And those are conservative numbers. We are seeing that, so far, the IPCC models have been too conservative.
Click to expand...
I do not see it as gambling anything! The data simply does not support the mid to high end of the predictions.
AGW is a tail of "IF'S", without verification.
IF (#1)we are actually able to push CO2 levels to 560 ppm, before we develop a better alternative energy carrier.
AND, (Boolean and) IF (#2)2XCO2 actually forces an top of atmosphere energy imbalance of 3.71 Wm-2,
AND, IF(#3) the amplified feedbacks exists,
AND, IF(#4)those feedbacks have a high enough feedback factor to cause the input warming from the CO2 forcing to
produce an output ECS warming in the mid to high end of the prediction.

#1 It has taken a lot of effort to increase CO2 levels by 128 ppm, the remaining 152 ppm to get the the first doubling,
is going to get more difficult as oil prices increase.

#2 We have only been able to detect a signal that MAY be CO2 forcing, but we cannot measure it yet,
quantifying that the 3.71 Wm-2 for 2XCO2 is accurate, may not even be possible, as the number changes as a warmer atmosphere
radiates more.

#3 We think the amplified feedbacks exists, but are not able to detect them in any meaningful way, in the record.

#4 If amplified feedbacks do exists, the feedback factor must be small, least it would have amplified the pre 1940 warming, to greater
than the current observed warming.

In short, I think I am doing the best thing for my children and grandchildren, by fighting the flawed, unsupported science,
that would limit their quality of life through unnecessary regulations.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

longview said:
I do not see it as gambling anything! The data simply does not support the mid to high end of the predictions.
AGW is a tail of "IF'S", without verification.
IF (#1)we are actually able to push CO2 levels to 560 ppm, before we develop a better alternative energy carrier.
AND, (Boolean and) IF (#2)2XCO2 actually forces an top of atmosphere energy imbalance of 3.71 Wm-2,
AND, IF(#3) the amplified feedbacks exists,
AND, IF(#4)those feedbacks have a high enough feedback factor to cause the input warming from the CO2 forcing to
produce an output ECS warming in the mid to high end of the prediction.

#1 It has taken a lot of effort to increase CO2 levels by 128 ppm, the remaining 152 ppm to get the the first doubling,
is going to get more difficult as oil prices increase.

#2 We have only been able to detect a signal that MAY be CO2 forcing, but we cannot measure it yet,
quantifying that the 3.71 Wm-2 for 2XCO2 is accurate, may not even be possible, as the number changes as a warmer atmosphere
radiates more.

#3 We think the amplified feedbacks exists, but are not able to detect them in any meaningful way, in the record.

#4 If amplified feedbacks do exists, the feedback factor must be small, least it would have amplified the pre 1940 warming, to greater
than the current observed warming.

In short, I think I am doing the best thing for my children and grandchildren, by fighting the flawed, unsupported science,
that would limit their quality of life through unnecessary regulations.
Click to expand...

Fighting for his grandchildren against the bad science!!!

While simultaneously not really understanding the term ‘significance’ in science.

Fun!
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Threegoofs said:
Fighting for his grandchildren against the bad science!!!

While simultaneously not really understanding the term ‘significance’ in science.

Fun!
Click to expand...
It is you who did not understand how 5% could actually be part of a 95% confidence interval,
but yes, I like my science verifiable. Does someone have a repeatable test to show that
increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere produces the predicted forcing?
How about a test validating, that if there is warming, that warming will be amplified to produce greater warming?
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Media_Truth said:
You are willing to gamble the lives (and quality of life) of your children and grandchildren. I'm not. 1.8 deg C is 3.24 deg F. We've already seen what 2 deg F does with wildfires in the US West. We've seen a lot of other effects of the current temperature rise. 3.24 deg F could be very catastrophic for future generations. And those are conservative numbers. We are seeing that, so far, the IPCC models have been too conservative.
Click to expand...

:bs

Uninformed nonsense.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

longview said:
It is you who did not understand how 5% could actually be part of a 95% confidence interval,
but yes, I like my science verifiable. Does someone have a repeatable test to show that
increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere produces the predicted forcing?
How about a test validating, that if there is warming, that warming will be amplified to produce greater warming?
Click to expand...

Yes, tell us how 5% is part of the confidence interval.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom