2015 the hottest year on record

[Gator 16,891]

11 hours ago, Jara said:

Wow. A genius. You can google.

 

So can I.

 

From Wikipedia's article on CO2 in the atmosphere:

 

Anthropogenic CO₂ emissions[edit]

See also: radiative forcing, List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions, and Global warming

While CO₂ absorption and release is always happening as a result of natural processes, the recent rise in CO₂ levels in the atmosphere is known to be mainly due to human (anthropogenic) activity.^[75] There are 4 ways human activity, especially fossil fuel burning, is known to have caused the rapid increase in atmospheric CO₂ over the last few centuries. 1) Various national statistics accounting for fossil fuel consumption, combined with knowledge of how much atmospheric CO₂ is produced per unit of fossil fuel (e.g. liter of gasoline).^[76] 2) By examining the ratio of various carbon isotopes in the atmosphere.^[75] The burning of long-buried fossil fuels releases CO₂ containing carbon of different isotopic ratios to those of living plants, enabling distinction between natural and human-caused contributions to CO₂ concentration. 3) Higher atmospheric CO₂ concentrations in the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the world's population lives (and emissions originate from), compared to the southern hemisphere. This difference has increased as anthropogenic emissions have increased.^[77] 4) Atmospheric O₂ levels are decreasing in earth's atmosphere as it reacts with the carbon in fossil fuels to form CO₂.^[78]

Burning fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO₂; deforestation is the second major cause. In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC, equivalent to 33.5 gigatonnes of CO₂ or about 4.3 ppm in earth's atmosphere) were released from fossil fuels and cement production worldwide, compared to 6.15 GtC in 1990.^[79] In addition, land use change contributed 0.87 GtC in 2010, compared to 1.45 GtC in 1990.^[79] In 1997, human-caused Indonesian peat fires were estimated to have released between 13% and 40% of the average carbon emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels around the world in a single year.^[80][81][82] In the period 1751 to 1900, about 12 GtC were released as CO₂ to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels, whereas from 1901 to 2013 the figure was about 380 GtC.^[83]

 

 

Jara,

What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 ?

What percentage of CO2 is man-made and what percentage is natural ?

[Gator 16,891]

11 hours ago, Jara said:

By the way, Pro, I'm curious - do you have any qualifications in climate - or any other - science at all? 

No.

[Jara 1,149]

2 hours ago, ProDee said:

Jara,

What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 ?

What percentage of CO2 is man-made and what percentage is natural ?

Uh, god, Pro - are you going to keep me googling all Christmas? Per-leeze, I've got better things to do. 

 

Like you, I'm unqualified in the field, and have to rely on Professor Wikipedia, who tells me the following (from the same article) :

 

Current concentration[edit]

See also: Global warming, Climate change, Atmospheric methane, Holocene climate, and Quaternary climate

 

CO₂ concentrations over the last 400,000 years

Over the past 400,000 years, CO₂ concentrations have shown several cycles of variation from about 180 parts per million during the deep glaciations of the Holocene and Pleistocene to 280 parts per million during the interglacial periods. Following the start of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO₂ concentration has increased to over 400 parts per million and continues to increase, causing the phenomenon of global warming.^[10] The daily average concentration of atmospheric CO₂ at Mauna Loa Observatory first exceeded 400 ppm on 10 May 2013^[11][12]although this concentration had already been reached in the Arctic in June 2012.^[13] It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, (equal to 410 ppm) ^{[14][15][16][17][18]}which corresponds to approximately 3200 gigatons of CO₂, containing approximately 870 gigatons of carbon. Each part per million by volume of CO₂ in the atmosphere thus represents approximately 2.13 gigatonnes of carbon.^[19] The global mean CO₂ concentration is currently rising at a rate of approximately 2 ppm/year and accelerating.^[14][20][21] There is an annual fluctuation of about 3–9 ppm which is negatively correlated with the Northern Hemisphere's growing season. The Northern Hemisphere dominates the annual cycle of CO₂ concentration because it has much greater land area and plant biomass than the Southern Hemisphere. Concentrations reach a peak in May as the Northern Hemisphere spring greenup begins, and decline to a minimum in October, near the end of the growing season.^[21][22]

Since global warming is attributed to increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as CO₂, scientists closely monitor atmospheric CO₂ concentrations and their impact on the present-day biosphere. The National Geographic wrote that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is this high "for the first time in 55 years of measurement—and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history."^[23] The current concentration may be the highest in the last 20 million years.^[6]

 

 

[Gator 16,891]

1 hour ago, Jara said:

Uh, god, Pro - are you going to keep me googling all Christmas? Per-leeze, I've got better things to do. 

 

Like you, I'm unqualified in the field, and have to rely on Professor Wikipedia, who tells me the following (from the same article) :

 

Current concentration[edit]

See also: Global warming, Climate change, Atmospheric methane, Holocene climate, and Quaternary climate

 

CO₂ concentrations over the last 400,000 years

Over the past 400,000 years, CO₂ concentrations have shown several cycles of variation from about 180 parts per million during the deep glaciations of the Holocene and Pleistocene to 280 parts per million during the interglacial periods. Following the start of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO₂ concentration has increased to over 400 parts per million and continues to increase, causing the phenomenon of global warming.^[10] The daily average concentration of atmospheric CO₂ at Mauna Loa Observatory first exceeded 400 ppm on 10 May 2013^[11][12]although this concentration had already been reached in the Arctic in June 2012.^[13] It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, (equal to 410 ppm) ^{[14][15][16][17][18]}which corresponds to approximately 3200 gigatons of CO₂, containing approximately 870 gigatons of carbon. Each part per million by volume of CO₂ in the atmosphere thus represents approximately 2.13 gigatonnes of carbon.^[19] The global mean CO₂ concentration is currently rising at a rate of approximately 2 ppm/year and accelerating.^[14][20][21] There is an annual fluctuation of about 3–9 ppm which is negatively correlated with the Northern Hemisphere's growing season. The Northern Hemisphere dominates the annual cycle of CO₂ concentration because it has much greater land area and plant biomass than the Southern Hemisphere. Concentrations reach a peak in May as the Northern Hemisphere spring greenup begins, and decline to a minimum in October, near the end of the growing season.^[21][22]

Since global warming is attributed to increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as CO₂, scientists closely monitor atmospheric CO₂ concentrations and their impact on the present-day biosphere. The National Geographic wrote that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is this high "for the first time in 55 years of measurement—and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history."^[23] The current concentration may be the highest in the last 20 million years.^[6]

 

 

Well done.

Baby steps.

One of the questions is answered in the body of the text, but not the other.  I'm not even convinced you know which is the answer 

[Jara 1,149]

Over the past 400,000 years, CO2 concentrations have shown several cycles of variation from about 180 parts per million during the deep glaciations of the Holocene and Pleistocene to 280 parts per million during the interglacial periods. Following the start of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased to over 400 parts per million and continues to increase, causing the phenomenon of global warming.

 

Isn't the answer to both questions there? Ranging from 180 ppm during glaciations to 280 ppm in interglacial periods, increasing to 400 ppm and rising since the Industrial Revolution, leading to global warming? 

[Gator 16,891]

1 hour ago, Jara said:

Over the past 400,000 years, CO2 concentrations have shown several cycles of variation from about 180 parts per million during the deep glaciations of the Holocene and Pleistocene to 280 parts per million during the interglacial periods. Following the start of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased to over 400 parts per million and continues to increase, causing the phenomenon of global warming.

 

Isn't the answer to both questions there? Ranging from 180 ppm during glaciations to 280 ppm in interglacial periods, increasing to 400 ppm and rising since the Industrial Revolution, leading to global warming? 

The question is what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 ?  You're right in that CO2 is now approx. 400 parts per million volume., so what percentage of the atmosphere does that make it ?  

The second part of the question is what percentage of CO2 occurs naturally without any human involvement and what percentage is man-made ?

[daisycutter 28,485]

2 hours ago, Jara said:

Over the past 400,000 years, CO2 concentrations have shown several cycles of variation from about 180 parts per million during the deep glaciations of the Holocene and Pleistocene to 280 parts per million during the interglacial periods. Following the start of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased to over 400 parts per million and continues to increase, causing the phenomenon of global warming.

 

Isn't the answer to both questions there? Ranging from 180 ppm during glaciations to 280 ppm in interglacial periods, increasing to 400 ppm and rising since the Industrial Revolution, leading to global warming? 

just to give a more complete picture of co2/temperature ranges across the ages

note cambrian period with 7000ppm co2 and a average global temperature of a  22C

note all the other times where the average global temperature has been around 22C (quite a lot of the time actually) and look at the corresponding co2 levels. there doesn't seem to be a very close correlation

 

[Jara 1,149]

The article I quoted gives the current figure of .041%.

 

The article also says it was 180-280 ppm during glaciations, rising to 400 ppm since the Industrial Revolution (i.e. almost doubled in a couple of hundred years, so presumably the extra 120-220 ppm has been added by human activity).  

 

[Gator 16,891]

10 hours ago, Jara said:

The article I quoted gives the current figure of .041%.

 

The article also says it was 180-280 ppm during glaciations, rising to 400 ppm since the Industrial Revolution (i.e. almost doubled in a couple of hundred years, so presumably the extra 120-220 ppm has been added by human activity).  

 

Boom.

This trace element gas that is known as "the gas of life" represents a tiny element of the earth's atmosphere. It's 4 one hundredths of one percent.  It's the equivalent of 4 cents in $10,000, yet it supposedly drives the planet's temperature if you believe the alarmists.

Do you know what percentage of this 0.04% occurs naturally and what percentage is man-made ?

Two more questions. 

Did you know CO2 was 10 times higher during an ice age ?  How could that be if it is such a significant driver of temperature ? 

Did you know life on earth is unsustainable if CO2 falls below 150 parts per million volume ?

Jara, it's an utter nonsense to claim that the best scientists in the world think the planet is warming "dangerously".  Some scientists agree that CO2 contributes to warming, but many don't. 

My extensive reading, listening and watching over the last decade leads me to believe that CO2 plays zero part in the earth's rise and fall of temperatures and that the trillions spent is the greatest fraud in human history.  The poor around the world should have access to cheap energy and they don't. 

Solar activity, cloud forcing and ocean circulation drives temperature, not an essential trace element gas that is a tiny 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere. 

Who'd have thought it was the sun, you know, that massive beast of solar activity in the sky, after all. 

[Jara 1,149]

Sorry Pro, but, again, I don't get it. You're telling me that the fact that something is only .041% of a larger body means that it couldn't have a significant effect upon the latter? So if a taipan bites you, you'd say, Oh, not to worry, it's only point whatever of my body weight?  That's about as cogent as Wrecker's analogy of the light shining in the bath.

 

The organisations I mentioned above - the ones you seemed to dismiss because they were old news (like, a year old, sure) - they aren't just some riff-raff the cat dragged in. They are absolute leaders in their field - the one I quoted, for example, the American Chemical Society - they don't come any bigger, better or more respected, both in industry and academia. And there were many others - the Meteorological Society, the Geophysical Union, the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics. They all believe global warming is serious, worsening and man-made.

 

Could I ask you a question(I'm serious here - you've obviously read a lot more than I have)? I just pulled that letter off the web. Are there any serious scientific organisations - and I mean serious - joined by academic leaders, respected by their profession, and not just stooges funded by some oil company or Saudi Arabia -  that support your views?

 

Another question - (I've taken the time to answer yours) - have you ever actually tried to discuss your opinions with scientists? Have you raised those questions with professionals, rather than semi-literate, unqualified no-hopers like me? If not, why not?     

[mauriesy 6,787]

An increase of a minute fraction of one hundredth of a per cent in CFCs increased the ozone hole over Antarctica. It only takes 2-3 parts per million of chlorine to disinfect a swimming pool. Some toxic substances at .001 per cent will kill you. Arguments about "small percentages" are spurious.

ProDee, when 80% of Australians believe more needs to be done about climate change, the world's largest mining company (BHP) is threatening to leaving the Mineral Council because of lack of climate change policy, and other large companies like Wesfarmers are getting out of coal to avoid future stranded assets, do you feel like you're winning anything?

Are the captains of industry deluded? I would imagine they're fairly clever.

What are you doing spending all your time here gish galloping in a pointless forum seen by a handful of people? Shouldn't you be out proselytising to the world with your apparent "truth" that wil save the world wasting vast sums of money?

[daisycutter 28,485]

13 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

An increase of a minute fraction of one hundredth of a per cent in CFCs increased the ozone hole over Antarctica. It only takes 2-3 parts per million of chlorine to disinfect a swimming pool. Some toxic substances at .001 per cent will kill you. Arguments about "small percentages" are spurious.

ProDee, when 80% of Australians believe more needs to be done about climate change, the world's largest mining company (BHP) is threatening to leaving the Mineral Council because of lack of climate change policy, and other large companies like Wesfarmers are getting out of coal to avoid future stranded assets, do you feel like you're winning anything?

Are the captains of industry deluded? I would imagine they're fairly clever.

What are you doing spending all your time here gish galloping in a pointless forum seen by a handful of people? Shouldn't you be out proselytising to the world with your apparent "truth" that wil save the world wasting vast sums of money?

in all fairness maurie, it should be pointed out that many of the 'captains of industry' are not taking their new-found climate stances purely because they are  'true agw believers' or out of a sense of altruism (unless you believe in the tooth fairy)

i know someone very well who works for a very large financial corporation whose job is 100% interfacing with all the agw lobby groups and government bodies. At the end of the day many of these 'captains' are steering their ships in the direction of least resistance with maximum revenue and profit always very much in mind

i would be reluctant to use major businesses as examples of the validity of agw, when they have so many other well known agendas

just saying....

[Gator 16,891]

4 hours ago, Jara said:

Sorry Pro, but, again, I don't get it. You're telling me that the fact that something is only .041% of a larger body means that it couldn't have a significant effect upon the latter? So if a taipan bites you, you'd say, Oh, not to worry, it's only point whatever of my body weight?  That's about as cogent as Wrecker's analogy of the light shining in the bath.

 

The organisations I mentioned above - the ones you seemed to dismiss because they were old news (like, a year old, sure) - they aren't just some riff-raff the cat dragged in. They are absolute leaders in their field - the one I quoted, for example, the American Chemical Society - they don't come any bigger, better or more respected, both in industry and academia. And there were many others - the Meteorological Society, the Geophysical Union, the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics. They all believe global warming is serious, worsening and man-made.

 

Could I ask you a question(I'm serious here - you've obviously read a lot more than I have)? I just pulled that letter off the web. Are there any serious scientific organisations - and I mean serious - joined by academic leaders, respected by their profession, and not just stooges funded by some oil company or Saudi Arabia -  that support your views?

 

Another question - (I've taken the time to answer yours) - have you ever actually tried to discuss your opinions with scientists? Have you raised those questions with professionals, rather than semi-literate, unqualified no-hopers like me? If not, why not?     

You didn't answer the question.  How much CO2 is naturally occurring and how much is man-made ?

Let me help you out.  97% of CO2 occurs naturally and 3% is attributed to man.

So in essence man-made CO2 is 0.0012%.  We're spending trillions of dollars to reduce our 0.0012% emissions.  Australia's contribution is 0.000018%.  In other words, nothing.  Future generations won't believe it.

Jara, there are hundreds of scientists around the world, including ex NASA scientists that don't agree that the planet is warming dangerously and some don't believe CO2 is a driving force.  There's also no such thing as a 97% consensus.

As for your analogy about taipans and a further one about CFCs ?  Please.  We're talking about plant food.  We're talking about a natural trace element gas we need just to survive.  We're talking about human contributions of 0.0012%.  We've even got a Leftist on here citing "big business".  Have you ever heard of anything as funny ?

You also need to understand that climate science is a very narrow field that not many specialise in, which is why plenty of scientists who don't buy the global warming hype can be ridiculed by people such as yourself as not a real climate scientist.  How many do you think there are ?

Sceptics, such as Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen, Dr Roy Spencer, Bjorn Lomborg, John Christy, Judith Curry, Ian Pilmer, Murry Salby, and others just have their reputations besmirched by the Left and anyone else who makes their living from this scare.  Appalling things are said about these people, whose only crime isn't to buy the alarmism hook line and sinker.  If you're a Leftist it's your duty to be a climate alarmist.  Some on the right believe it too, but it's not part of their dogma.

There are organisations who don't believe the alarmism, such as the Heartland Institute.  They're not hard to google.  But I can promise you that they will all be ridiculed as misinformers, deniers, or other such nouns.

I've read and listened to as much as I can so as to be able to form by own views.  I've read and heard enough to know that the scare is simply not reliable.  The climate models have been wrong.  NASA has altered data because the models were inconveniently wrong.  You ?  You just believe what you're fed.

As for your final question...  This is a very minor hobby for me.  I'm a footy fan.  I also have a small business.  I have no interest in joining other forums to debate something where there will be no winners.  A minor contribution on here read by nobody is enough to sate my minor appetite.

 

[Jara 1,149]

Thank for the response, Pro, but you must have misread my question. I asked (quite genuinely- I know you've read more widely on this than I have) if there were any credible scientific organisations that support your views on climate change and the only one you could come up with was the Heartland Institute?

 

Pleeeezzze...  They are not a scientific organisation's cake-hole. They are a rabidly right-wing American think-tank funded by a bunch of self-serving billionaires whose most significant entry into public policy to date has been working with Phillip Morris to question the link between smoking and cancer.

 

I tend to trust the science on most things - when I go to the doctor, when I step onto an aeroplane, when I look at the weather chart. That's why, even though I'm progressive, I don't trust things like homeopathy, anti-vaccination, etc...  

So I'll ask the question more clearly: is there a single, professional scientific organisation anywhere that supports your view on climate change? 

[Gator 16,891]

45 minutes ago, Jara said:

Thank for the response, Pro, but you must have misread my question. I asked (quite genuinely- I know you've read more widely on this than I have) if there were any credible scientific organisations that support your views on climate change and the only one you could come up with was the Heartland Institute?

 

Pleeeezzze...  They are not a scientific organisation's cake-hole. They are a rabidly right-wing American think-tank funded by a bunch of self-serving billionaires whose most significant entry into public policy to date has been working with Phillip Morris to question the link between smoking and cancer.

 

I tend to trust the science on most things - when I go to the doctor, when I step onto an aeroplane, when I look at the weather chart. That's why, even though I'm progressive, I don't trust things like homeopathy, anti-vaccination, etc...  

So I'll ask the question more clearly: is there a single, professional scientific organisation anywhere that supports your view on climate change? 

Who is going to fund organisations to disprove man is warming the planet dangerously when governments all around the world are funding organisations to prove the opposite ?  I suppose you think the fossil fuel industry is going to pay millions upon millions setting up science organisations ?

There are countless eminent scientists who have written widely on why CO2 is either not dangerously warming the planet or not warming it at all.  But you're not interested in doing research.  You're only interested in parroting Leftist views.

You don't even know why you believe it.  You simply know you're told to.  How moronic is that ?

Edited December 27, 2017 by ProDee

[dieter 3,325]

2 hours ago, Jara said:

Thank for the response, Pro, but you must have misread my question. I asked (quite genuinely- I know you've read more widely on this than I have) if there were any credible scientific organisations that support your views on climate change and the only one you could come up with was the Heartland Institute?

 

Pleeeezzze...  They are not a scientific organisation's cake-hole. They are a rabidly right-wing American think-tank funded by a bunch of self-serving billionaires whose most significant entry into public policy to date has been working with Phillip Morris to question the link between smoking and cancer.

 

I tend to trust the science on most things - when I go to the doctor, when I step onto an aeroplane, when I look at the weather chart. That's why, even though I'm progressive, I don't trust things like homeopathy, anti-vaccination, etc...  

So I'll ask the question more clearly: is there a single, professional scientific organisation anywhere that supports your view on climate change? 

Honestly, why do you bother debating this nutcase? He's as obstinate as the 'authorities'  who persecuted Copernicus on the question whether the world is a sphere or flat...

[Gator 16,891]

4 hours ago, dieter said:

Honestly, why do you bother debating this nutcase? He's as obstinate as the 'authorities'  who persecuted Copernicus on the question whether the world is a sphere or flat...

Haha.  This dolt is calling others  a "nutcase" !!

Given your background it's understandable. 

Edited December 28, 2017 by ProDee

[Gator 16,891]

Plummeting temperatures could send the world into a 'mini ice age' in 2030 and could OVERRIDE global warming, claim mathematicians

• Temperatures will start dropping in 2021, according to a mathematical model
• This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the 'Maunder minimum'
• This was previously known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5215575/Plummeting-temperatures-cause-mini-ice-age-2030.html

 

[Gator 16,891]

 

[Gator 16,891]

Who'd have thought it was solar activity ?

[Gator 16,891]

In 1989 the UN said we had until the year 2000 to save the planet. In 2008, NASA said we had until 2012 to save the planet. This clown show never ends

1.	San Jose Mercury News (CA) - June 30, 1989 - 3F General News GRIM FORECAST
	A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human...

[Gator 16,891]

[dieter 3,325]

2 hours ago, ProDee said:

Haha.  This dolt is calling others  a "nutcase" !!

Given your background it's understandable. 

Ha ha. You know nothing about my background. 

[Jara 1,149]

8 hours ago, ProDee said:

Who is going to fund organisations to disprove man is warming the planet dangerously when governments all around the world are funding organisations to prove the opposite ?  I suppose you think the fossil fuel industry is going to pay millions upon millions setting up science organisations ?

There are countless eminent scientists who have written widely on why CO2 is either not dangerously warming the planet or not warming it at all.  But you're not interested in doing research.  You're only interested in parroting Leftist views.

You don't even know why you believe it.  You simply know you're told to.  How moronic is that ?

Pro, the professional bodies that I know are mostly funded by the subscriptions of their members. Why on earth would governments pay organisations to peddle false information? What is their motive? I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't make sense. What are you suggesting, that there's some giant conspiracy involving all the governments and all the professional science organisations in the world?

 

Re your last comment, alas, you're probably right. I haven't done a huge amount of original research (like - none) on climate science. Nor have I done any research on the biosynthesis of the brain, the expulsion of magnetic flux fluids in superconductivity or the role of spin in Schrodinger's equation. I am pathetic, a left-wing parrot. I have vast gaps in my knowledge.

But the thing is,   where I have those gaps, I tend to trust the science. It does have a way of measuring, assessing and validating things until an approximation of the truth emerges. And, when it's proved wrong, it admits it. This is why we can trust things like - oh, I don't know - aeroplanes, computers, vaccination.  This is why, when my doctor tells me my cholesterol is high (it isn't, you'll be relieved to know) I don't nip out and get a second opinion from the bus driver on the way home.

 

So, back to my original question ( and let's be fair - I went to great lengths to try and answer yours - I know, I know, I failed miserably, but I did my best, so maybe you could do the same) Is there a single, professionally recognised scientific organisation in the world - anywhere! The Albanian Alchemists? The Burkina Faso Headshrinkers? - that supports your views? 

A simple yes or no will suffice.

[Jara 1,149]

33 minutes ago, dieter said:

Ha ha. You know nothing about my background. 

It's kind of grey, with a touch of white, on my computer.