morningsun said..
NOAA said...
Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.

source: www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm

NOAA's math needs some schooling;
378-
315
=63.
Its a 20% increase, which is still troubling, IF their original figures are correct.
Their original assumption that 100 is 36% of 315 is also incorrect, it is 31.75%. Who the fluck is doing the science/maths at NOAA...
If they want to be taken seriously as an academic authority on the subject some simple fact checking would be nice.

This thread started off amusing, but somehow the levity disappeared along the line.

Anyway, if you read the article that you are quoting you should have noticed that the baseline level of CO2 mentioned in the paragraph before the bit you quote is 278ppm

"Each year since global measurements of CO2 began, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased.Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.
Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.


It's an odds on proposition that NOAA has arithmeticians who have established math credentials far beyond what you or I have, 'though I will grant that the article is very slightly confusing in that it doesn't refer readers back to the baseline. It just assumes that they realise that the baseline is not 1958.

morningsun said..
NOAA said...
Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.

source: www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm

NOAA's math needs some schooling;
378-
315
=63.
Its a 20% increase, which is still troubling, IF their original figures are correct.
Their original assumption that 100 is 36% of 315 is also incorrect, it is 31.75%. Who the fluck is doing the science/maths at NOAA...
If they want to be taken seriously as an academic authority on the subject some simple fact checking would be nice.

It adds up. My statement does not. My bad.

The statement in its entirety:

Scientific measurements ...the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.

It's 278 to 378, since the industrial revolution. 100/278 = 36%

I'd edit my own post but I can't.

Nonetheless, that it has increased that much since the industrial revolution kinda points pretty clearly to where it's coming from.

Except they're only rising....

Is any part of the current sea rise natural?

50%, 25%, 5% ????????

TonyAbbott said..
Is any part of the current sea rise natural?

50%, 25%, 5% ????????

It might be the same percentage of the increase in CO2, and other greenhouse gases, that is natural. That'd be a very small percentage.

I say *might* be because I'm not sure that the ratio of greenhouse gases, air temperature, sea temperature, at different heights/depths, sea level, and so on and on are all 1:1.

Nonetheless, the percentage that is natural would be so small as to be insignificant. We're comparing natural climate change that happens over tens of thousands of years to climate change that is happening over a few hundred.

...so, perhaps 1/10,000th? 0.001%?

As you like to say; "insignificant".

^ It's crazy it might come to that, because the effort, disruption, and money that will have to go into adapting is far, far, faaaaaaaaaaaar greater than preventing it.

Preventing it is actually easier, better, cheaper.

Even the World Economic Forum agrees: reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2017/global-risks-landscape-2017/?doing_wp_cron=1584699360.0331850051879882812500

Adaption is smart

Humans have always adapted to their climate and environment

Mitigation is waste of money

evlPanda said..
Preventing it is actually easier, better, cheaper.

Even the World Economic Forum agrees: reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2017/global-risks-landscape-2017/?doing_wp_cron=1584699360.0331850051879882812500

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for preventing it, just not convinced that is actually possible. Opinions on this will differ but a fair amount of optimism is required whichever way you look at it.

PS; this thread could continue for our lifetimes; even longer than "Funny images of 9/11"

The sea level may well rise and fall . as it has done in the past . The real effect is on what people have built on the coastline , ever wondered why there isn't too much known about history from beyond 10,000 years ago . It's underwater !

At worst we will go bankrupt and lower our living standards to that of Venezuela

We already have people having to choose between having the lights on or food

Solar panels are great for the rich, but when the rich stop buying their electricity from the grid the poor have to pay more to make up the loss is demand

evlPanda said..
Wait, wait, wait...

Let's go back to wether the Global Warming is human induced or not.

You've slipped away before coming to a conclusion. You've changed the topic.

That was his job.....

evlPanda said..
At worst we'll end up with cleaner, more efficient sources of energy..

I hope you're right but there is a worse scenario; we pursue economically destructive policies that do nothing to reverse human-induced climate change. In our weakened economy we are then unable to adapt.

See there are essentially three camps in this debate now:

- Those who believe in anthropogenic climate change and feel we should try to reverse this at any cost
- Those who believe in anthropogenic climate change and question our capacity to do anything about it
- Those who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change (it would be nice if these people were right but I don't think so)

Let's talk about it.

TonyAbbott said..
Is it back to global warming, I thought it was called climate change.

Anyway, the earths climate has changed for billions of years, naturally. And will continue to do so.

Co2 levels have changed over billions of years, naturally. We have very low levels of co2 at the moment. The planet thrives with high plant food levels. During the jurassic period the co2 levels were up to 9000ppm and there 25m ferns with giant dinosaurs.

There is nothing going on with the climate that is unusual or unprecedented.

If humans are contributing, it would be only be very minor. Co2 is just one greenhouse gas, a minor one at that, about 3% of total greenhouse gases. Of which we only contribute a tiny amount, about 3% of that 3%.

No need to over exaggerate our impact on the climate. No need to waste trillions of $ when even the CSIRO says that if we were to reduce our co2 output to zero we would have no impact on climate change.

The CSIRO has zero empirical evidence of human induced climate change. All this economy destroying fear mongering is based on failed models and exaggerated predictions.

Baffles me why we even bother to fund scientists when lay people can figure out incredibly complicated issues like CC for themselves

In the real world - expert consensus (97% in the case of CC) is a powerful thing.
We don't have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we defer to the conclusions of experts.
It's why we visit doctors when we're ill or why we trust a pilot in a plane. The same is true of climate change.

azymuth said..

TonyAbbott said..
Is it back to global warming, I thought it was called climate change.

Anyway, the earths climate has changed for billions of years, naturally. And will continue to do so.

Co2 levels have changed over billions of years, naturally. We have very low levels of co2 at the moment. The planet thrives with high plant food levels. During the jurassic period the co2 levels were up to 9000ppm and there 25m ferns with giant dinosaurs.

There is nothing going on with the climate that is unusual or unprecedented.

If humans are contributing, it would be only be very minor. Co2 is just one greenhouse gas, a minor one at that, about 3% of total greenhouse gases. Of which we only contribute a tiny amount, about 3% of that 3%.

No need to over exaggerate our impact on the climate. No need to waste trillions of $ when even the CSIRO says that if we were to reduce our co2 output to zero we would have no impact on climate change.

The CSIRO has zero empirical evidence of human induced climate change. All this economy destroying fear mongering is based on failed models and exaggerated predictions.

Baffles me why we even bother to fund scientists when lay people can figure out incredibly complicated issues like CC for themselves

In the real world - expert consensus (97% in the case of CC) is a powerful thing.
We don't have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we defer to the conclusions of experts.
It's why we visit doctors when we're ill or why we trust a pilot in a plane. The same is true of climate change.

The 97% consensus is a made up imaginary number

Of the 11,994 papers used for the Cook et al. (2013) 97% claim, 99.5 did not say recent global warming was mostly man made.

Only 0.5 did (Legates et al., 2013). It took massive amounts of creativity and deception to invent the 97% consensus theory.

TonyAbbott said..

evlPanda said..
Wait, wait, wait...

Let's go back to wether the Global Warming is human induced or not.

You've slipped away before coming to a conclusion. You've changed the topic.

Is it back to global warming, I thought it was called climate change.

Anyway, the earths climate has changed for billions of years, naturally. And will continue to do so.

Co2 levels have changed over billions of years, naturally. We have very low levels of co2 at the moment. The planet thrives with high plant food levels. During the jurassic period the co2 levels were up to 9000ppm and there 25m ferns with giant dinosaurs.

There is nothing going on with the climate that is unusual or unprecedented.

If humans are contributing, it would be only be very minor. Co2 is just one greenhouse gas, a minor one at that, about 3% of total greenhouse gases. Of which we only contribute a tiny amount, about 3% of that 3%.

No need to over exaggerate our impact on the climate. No need to waste trillions of $ when even the CSIRO says that if we were to reduce our co2 output to zero we would have no impact on climate change.

The CSIRO has zero empirical evidence of human induced climate change. All this economy destroying fear mongering is based on failed models and exaggerated predictions.

We just had this entire conversation already.

You have alzheimer's.