I'm doing my best by using multi-post block to make sense to those who don't want to be political toward climate change issue, specifically Iggle's post.
Note: All data I'm using are official data (NOAA’s Climate.gov, NASA & Mauna Loa CO2 Observatory's CO2 records).
There are 2 warming periods in 20th century global warming: Early Twentieth Century Warming (ETCW). from 1910 to 1945 and the recent warming since 1950s that extends to today, 21th century. Let's take a look at these 2 periods.
ETCW, 1910-1945
From the linked NOAA’s Global surface temperature change chart (I'm using smoothed data, dark red line):
Temperature rise during ETCW, i.e. from 1910 to 1945 is 0.7 C
1910: -0.8 c, 1945: -0.1 C. The difference (increased) between 1910 and 1945 is 0.7 C.
Let’s see CO2 records during this warming period.
From NASA's CO2 records, see linked NASA data in next post. CO2 level at 1910 is 300.1 ppm. CO2 at 1945 is 310.3 ppm. The difference (increased) between 1910 and 1945 is only about 10 ppm
So, atmospheric CO2 rise from 1910 to 1945: 10 ppm.
Recent warming, 1945 -2018
Temperature rise from the recent warming i.e. from 1945 to 2018 is 0.7 C
1945: -0.1 C, 2018: +0.6 C. the difference between 1945 to 2018 is 0.7 C
The CO2 records during this warming period, again, from NASA & Mauna Loa,
1945 is 310.3 ppm, 2018 is 410.16 ppm. The difference (increased) between 1945 and 2018 is about 100 ppm.
So, atmospheric CO2 rise from 1945 to 2018 is 100 ppm
So, the warming during the ETCW period (1910-1945) was associated with a CO2 increase of 10 ppm only, whereas about same amount of warming during the recent warming period was associated with about 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. That is almost an order of magnitude greater CO2 increase for a comparable amount of global warming.
Unless scientists can explain the early 20th century warming, any reasonable people should have little confidence in their attribution statements regarding the cause of the recent warming (1945-2018).
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=514312
I specifically did not do that in my post. Clearly there are a vast multitude of variables that affect global temperatures. The vast majority of these are completely beyond our control - volcanism, sunspots, etc. That is what I referred to as the "baseline", which Baron seems to be very excited about since it may mean that we will be able to grow corn in Greenland again.
If you overlay this baseline with the increase in CO2 in the recent past, caused almost entirely by humans, you will experience higher temperatures relative to said baseline effects. The degree that these temperatures will be higher is still open to debate because of feedback effects. But there is no debate about the direction of the effect.
I suppose you can continue to console yourself by looking at some temperature measurements and shouting "eureka!" when you point at the change in CO2 between them. However, you should at least recognize that you have not considered the thousands of other variables that went into those temperature changes.
I will say it again - If an observer looks at a graph of CO2 concentration in our atmosphere and doesn't feel the slightest twinge of concern, there is something wrong with that observer. This is a greenhouse gas, it will make things warmer, and we are the cause - that is beyond dispute.
Note: This is an old graph, as you point out below the current reading is actually 410ppm
warming can be caused by a vast multitude of variables. Why change of one of this vast multitude of variables made you nervous? One thing you are definitely wrong is about "baseline", which by your definition is natural forces. You don't know this baseline since you acknowledge you don't know those unknow natural variables. On the other hand, you talked like you know this baseline. That's why you are nervous when you compare current data to your baseline. That's very contradictory in your reasoning. Anyway, very incoherent response, Iggle.
You try to project some image of being a mathematician or something.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are pumping it into the atmosphere at rates that have resulted in readings far higher than have been seen in millions of years. Versus whatever else might happen for the earth over the next 500 years, 400+ parts per million CO2 is going to make it warmer than it would have been at 200 parts per million. Dispute that, if you can.
The drastically changes you propose is deforestation. It is significantly more of a factor in high CO2 thanfossil fuel use. It also makes sense ecologically to stop the practice. The loss of plant respiration as well as the release of plant carbon into the atmosphere are significant.
Fortunately, the resource is renewable and can also be replanted at a fraction of the cost of the Paris Accord, and it wouldn’t cripple our economy or change our way of life significantly. But that is really the underlying point of the Paris Accord.
Link: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/
that changing this variable may very well not impact climate significantly. Still, despite this, we are being asked to change our entire way of life for this effort.
You also have absolutely no explanation for how the Paris Accord affects the change that you desire.
You simply are not being honest if you do not admit that you are operating on assumptions borne of inadequate data and a sense of panic.
The first step is to get people to realize there might be a problem. Policy is a separate discussion.
and thus I am against he idea that we should embark on such policies for this reason. Science, not cultism.
I am glad to move to nuclear - i want it. I am glad to move to electric cars - I want that too.
Both would decrease pollution, and both would in the long run, if done together, lead to cheaper, cleaner travel.
I am also glad to cut petroleum based plastics - again for decreased pollution.
But I am dead set against the Paris Accord - because not only is there no evidence that it will work, your data here as well as the MIT data suggest it won't work.
Further, it would result in huge US targeted taxation, and a move to unnecessary golabalization.
(no message)
(no message)
Otherwise known as the Devil's Hour.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
...because of the anger over scientific discussion, I’m guessing a zealot who doesn’t like his dogma challenged. Prove me wrong, please.
That kind of shit?
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt
(no message)
Link: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2/mlo
(no message)
Link: https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/SotC2017_01_GlobalSurfaceTemps_graph_large.png