Read the abstract posted that claims CO2 has already doubled. Missing from that was any math explaining how that happened. Especially since CO2 is a relatively new problem from clean combustion.
AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
Are we talking math here or are we talking calculus? Actually a person can know a whole pile about math without knowing anything about calculus. :smile:
Look, to put this square here, C02 is increasing at an exponential rate not a linear rate. So, you can't just say 2ppm for the year 2010, plus 2ppm for the year 2011, etc.. the rate increases every year so it takes much less time to reach a critical temperature than what you were implying earlier.
Trying doing calculus without using mathematics.
Calculus (Latin, calculus, a small stone used for counting) is a branch of mathematics focused on limits, functions, derivatives, integrals, and infinite series. This subject constitutes a major part of modern mathematics education. It has two major branches, differential calculus and integral calculus, which are related by the fundamental theorem of calculus. Calculus is the study of change,[1] in the same way that geometry is the study of shape and algebra is the study of operations and their application to solving equations. A course in calculus is a gateway to other, more advanced courses in mathematics devoted to the study of functions and limits, broadly called mathematical analysis. Calculus has widespread applications in science, economics, and engineering and can solve many problems for which algebra alone is insufficient.
That is not the point I was trying to make, the other poster was asked if he had no knowledge of math when in fact I think it was calculus he possibly had no knowledge of. Thus I suggested the anomoly of R.I. vs. U.S.- one could have a lot of knowledge of the U.S. yet know nothing about R.I. You don't have to explain to me the various types of math- I've taken them all at some point right up to integral calculus and spent most of my life working with the one you missed- trigonometry and before modern calculators I used logarithms extensively. :lol:
More crocks by deniers.
YouTube - The "CO2 is Plant Food" Crock
Knocking down denialist myths is like shooting fish in a barrel, but there are so many barrels, and so little time.
Potholer’s description and sources after the jump.
SOURCES:
Original myth published in:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/…
“‘Greener’ Climate Prediction Shows Plants Slow Warming”
NASA press release
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/feat…
Original paper:
“Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach”
L. Bounoua et al, Geophysical Research Letters, Dec 2010
Bio of Lewis Page:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/lew…
Mauna Loa CO2 growth data:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/tre…
Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth
from economic activity, carbon intensity, and
efficiency of natural sinks
– J. Canadell, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2007
“Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters”
– A.P. Sokolov et al, MIT 2009
Myth from the Register repeated:
http://www.openyoureyesnews.com/2010/…
…and again…
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/219…
…and again…
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9045/Ne…
…and again…
http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/…
…and again…
NASA Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Low Sensitivity To CO2 Doubling: The UN’s IPCC Global Warming Science Is Imploding
http://www.c3headlines.com/are-leftis…
…and again…
New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64°C warming
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/…
…and again…
NASA Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Low Sensitivity To CO2 Doubling: The UN’s IPCC Global Warming Science Is Imploding
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/12/na…
…and again…
Greenhouse Gasses Aren’t Going To Be A Problem For Centuries Say Scientists From NASA
http://rightwingnews.com/2010/12/gree…
“Recent decline in the global land evapotranspiration trend due to limited moisture supply”
– M. Jung et al, Nature, October 2010
Astroturfing at it's best.:lol:
...but but but....it's the banks and scientists and goverments and the UN and aliens and guy that smokes a lot from xfiles....etc etc etc.
I love right wing conspiracy kooks.
Speaking of that, here's another desperate tin foil hat attempt from Tim Ball.
Up the temprature goes, and still there is debate.
LOS ANGELES – On a remote island in the Canadian Arctic where no trees now grow, a newly unearthed mummified forest is giving researchers a peek into how plants reacted to ancient climate change.
That knowledge will be key as scientists begin to tease out the impacts of global warming in the Arctic.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101216/ap_on_sc/us_sci_mummified_forest
I'm not saying all of the claims about climate change are accurate or true, but you'd have to go some distance to believe that human activity has no effect on the global climate whatsoever.
So, then how do you figure it will take 190 something years to double the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide? The growth rate is clearly exponential, yet your math is linear. Does not compute.
Oh yeah, and people use the Mauna Loa record with good reason. First, it's statistically indistinguishable-they measure the same trend- from the global product, which includes 66 monitoring stations spread across the globe, and available at many different latitudes. Second, it's a longer record. Keeling set up the first station there, and he picked Mauna Loa because it is such a good spot.
Climate is defined as the average of thirty years of weather.
By the time we had the total station I was a supervisor and like most supervisors didn't have to know f*** all..............on a good day I could probably get it out of the case. I was used to instruments like open plate K&E's or Gurleys and a 200' Raybone Chesterman chain, and a set of Chamber's Tables.
Tonington Climate is defined as the average of thirty years of weather.[/QUOTE said:
I know about Keeling. I saw a documentary on him 20 years ago. The reason MLO is a good place to sample from is because it was the only place taking continual daily samples until how recently? Any guesses? Keeling wasn't paid to monitor because nobody else was looking, he did it on his own for personal research. One data set from one location is not even close to enough sampling to form any kind of an average baseline globally.
Yeah...that's what I said, longer record.
If you're interested in rate of change, and one dataset is statistically indistinguishable from the global data set, and is verified by other observations, like satellites and ice cores, then it actually is enough sampling. That's what validating does, amongst many other useful outcomes.
Really? What are daily and yearly flucuations from location to location from 1958 to present? Can that be established from one data set? The only way to compare his data on regional basis is either tree rings, aquatic sediment cores or ice cores. How accurate are tree rings, aquatic sediment cores and ice cores for establishing a global data set that compare to Keeling's real sampling?
As a example. Mauna Loa raw hourly averages 2004
Annual swings of nearly 20PPM from just one location? The atmosphere is dynmaic and changes from hour to hour and location to location and season to season.
What were the samples below 3397 m since 1958?
Yeah, that's not news to anyone. Go to NOAA, download their global data, and then subtract Mauna Loa from that. It's insignificant. Compare Mauna Loa to other stations, and Mauna Loa runs right through them all. It really doesn't matter....because carbon dioxide is so well mixed. You could use any station because when you remove the annual signal, the slope will be indistinguishable.
That is total bull**** and you know it. Please show real CO2 samples from around the globe at various altitudes from 1956 to present.
Post away!
Either you're playing dumb, or you're a genuine article...Do you see how those stations are tracking each other? The only significant difference is the size of the annual signals.
Validation...look it up and learn.