View Single Post
Old 08-23-2013, 02:10 PM   #118
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
CO2 could never increase total Greenhouse gases by 40%, because it only comprises about 25% of greenhouse gases.
Pre-industrial CO2: ~280 ppm
Current CO2: ~400 ppm
% change = (400-280)/280 = ~43%.

What are your numbers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
I know you'll argue that they'll contribute to a possible feedback loop with water vapor, but that relies on CO2 warming in line with models which currently appear unrealistic.
Define "unrealistic".

Specific humidity trend:


Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Essentially you're saying "if my prediction is right, we'll see this much extra water vapor." But that argument already relies on that prediction being right. Which would make it a circular argument. And one that would bring in numerous other factors and barely understood variables as well.
You're trying to overturn decades of understanding of the climate system, and not providing any theory that better explains the observations. Einstein didn't just state that Newton was wrong, and leave it at that. Of course, the deniers have lots of ideas - many of which contradict each other - but they have yet to come up with a better theory. Until that day arrives, we stick with what we have that works best.

Care to proffer a better theory?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
You simply can't make the argument that a period is "too short" to be significant when that period comprises at least half or more of the models' lifespans. And we've only had satellite measurements for 45 years. Are you seriously saying that a third of that data can't be definitively considered significant?
No. A period of less than 30 years is insufficient to detect a significant trend. That doesn't mean the data is insignificant. Please learn the terminology so you don't make such silly mistakes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Simply put, a theory that really started gaining traction less than 30 years ago can't pooh-pooh 15 years of subsequent data.
Uh, lots more than "less than 30 years ago":

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, Philosophical Magazine 1896(41): 237-76.

and

Bell Telephone Science Hour, 1958:



Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
If mankind had 150 years of reliable global temperature data, 15 years would be significant. But we don't have 150 years of that data. Not even close. The range from about 1970 to the late 90's is what got people all fired up about where we were headed.
Not at all. Why do you suppose Keating started taking CO2 measurements in the late 1950s?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
There's no way to argue that we should heed that, but then ignore 1998-2013.
You ignore ~400,000 B.C.E. to 1998, and claim the last 15 years is all that matters. Try again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Carbon tax? It's obvious you haven't fully thought through what a reasonable enforcement of that would entail. But that's another argument for another day.
What's your preferred policy?
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote